THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CIV NO:……. OF 2010
HELD AT PERTH
In the matter of an application for Mandamus Orders to compel the President of the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (SAT) as the judge in the Applicant’s Application in VR107 of 2008 (the First Judgment) who refused to make the finding that the Pseudo Full Board exist by its very own admissive conduct and is found to be usurping the lawful functions of the real regulator of the Legal Profession in WA without the legal authority of the majority consent of the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia, to perform his duties as a judicial officer in good faith and in accordance with his Oath of Office.
And
In the matter of an application for Mandamus Orders to compel Justice EM Heenan in the Applicant’s Application for Certiorari Orders Nisi in CIV 1019 of 2010 to review and quash the First Judgment and the Second Judgment of Justice Chaney; the latter being his ambushed res judicata judgment delivered on 4.11.2010 in VR 87of 2009 for the common law-debarred Further Remedy of a Non-Existent Professional Misconduct; both the judges, to respond to their duties in the public interests in accordance with their respective Oath of Office as Justices of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
EX PARTE: NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of document: 29th April, 2010
Date of filing: 29th January, 2010.
Filed on behalf of: The Ex parte Applicant
Prepared by:
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN Phone: 08 92757440;
387, Alexander Drive, DIANELLA Mobile: 0421642735
WA 6059
Emails: nnchin@msn.com; nnchin09@tpg.com.au
AFFIDAVIT OF APPLICANT IN SUPPORT OF HIS EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR MANDAMUS ORDERS WITH ANNEXURES
LIST OF ANNEXURES
No Label Date of Document Particulars of Document Page
I to V EXPARTE MANDAMUS ORDERS APPLICATION 29.4.2010 APPLICATION FOR MANDAMUS ORDERS AGAINST JUSTICE CHANEY AND JUSTICE HEENAN TO COMPEL THEM TO DO THEIR DUTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE i to v
1 NNC-1 31.3.2010 Email from Mr. Stephen Sommerville as the Associate to Justice Heenan requiring me to read from the Asterisked Case Law relevant extracts of the common law pertaining to my Application in CIV 1019 of 2010. 1
2 NNC-2-1 to NNC-2-4 2.4.2010 Email letter from Applicant to the Associate of Justice Heenan enclosing the Amended List of Authorities in 3 pages which contains the Asterisked Case law from which counsel is required to read the relevant extract for the trial judge in 4 pages. 2-5
3 NNC-3-1 to NNC-3-16 6.4.2010 Transcript of proceedings in CIV 1019 of 2010 which indicates that Justice Heenan decided to issue orders for the LPCC to respond to my claims in my Application for Certiorari Orders against the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia 6-21
4.
NNC-3A-1 to NNC-3A-2 7.4.2010 Orders of the Justice Heenan issued pursuant to the hearing of CIV 1019 of 2019 at 10.30 am on 6.4.2010 that the Applicant serve all documents filed with the Supreme Court for that case on the LPCC within 2 days and that the LPCC to respond to the Applicant’s claim within 10 days, i.e. by the latest 17.4.2010 which did not occur, in two pages. 22-24
5. NNC-3B 7.4.2010 Cover Letter to the LPCC duly receipted by the LPCC, copied to the Chief Executive Officer of SAT in VR 87 of 2009 and the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in CIV 1019 of 2010, indicating that the Applicant had complied with the Orders of Justice Heenan issued on 7.4.2010 as indicated in document 4 above. 25
6. NNC-3C 7.4.2010 Facscimile letter from Applicant to the Chief Executive Officer of SAT in VR 87 of 2009 copied to the Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court in CIV 1019 of 2019 and the LPCC keeping it up to date with the current state of affairs of the two cases: namely the malicious res judicata proceedings in SAT in VR 87 of 2009 and the Certiorari Orders Application in CIV 1019 of 2018 to quash and review Justice Chaney’s decision in VR 107 of 2008 and VR 87 of 2009. 26.
7 NNC-4-1 to NNC-4-3 17.4.2010 Chronology of Events for hearing before Justice Heenan on 21.4.2010 detailing the history and tribulations which my Applicaion for Certiorari Orders in CIV 1019 of 2010 has to go through the process of court in three pages. 22-24
8 NNC-5-1 to NNC-5-11
21.4.2010 Justice Heenan did not allow me to read from the extracts of asterisked case law in my Amended List of Authorities and I resorted to provide him with a copy of those extracts in 11 pages. 25-35
9 NNC-5A-1 to NNC-5A- 21.4.2010 Copy of transcript of the proceedings in CIV 1019 of 2019 that transpired at 10.30 am which did not include the draft judgement or the extempore judgment delivered by His Honour at the same time, in 4 pages. 36-39
10 NNC-6-1 to NNC-6-2 23.4.2010 Facsimile letter from Applicant to the Legal Practice Board copied to LPCC, the Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court of WA, the Ombudsman of Western Australia and the Attorney General of Western Australia complaining about the perversion of the course of justice of the Legal Practice Board in contacting Justice Heenan secretly on 20.4.2010 thus influencing his about turn decision on 21.4.2010 thus comprising his independence as the trial judge in CIV 1019 of 2010 in 2 pages. 40-41
11
NNC-7-1 to NNC-7-2 23.4.2010 Facsimile letter from Applicant to the Crime Corruption Commissioner concerning the existence of the Pseudo Full Board, the President of SAT involvement in persecuting the Applicant for the common-law debarred Further Remedy of a non-existent professional misconduct and the falsifications of the Court Records by David Taylor Lawyers in CIV 1131 of 2006 which was misinterpreted by Justice Chaney, in 3 pages. 42-44
12 NNC-8 22.4.2010 Applicant’s appealed against the decision of Justice Heenan’s dismissal of the Applicant’s Application for Certiorari Orders to the Court of Appeal of the High Court of Western Australia in CACV 41 of 2010. 45
13 NNC-9-1 to NNC-9-3 26.4.2010 Email of the President of the Unity Party of Western Australia Mr. Eddie Hwang to the Crime Corruption Commissioner Len Roberts-Smith QC and to the Attorney General of WA Mr. Christian Porter regarding the secret communication of the Legal Practice Board which caused a reversal (on 21.4.2010) of the decision of Justice Heenan given on 6.4.2010, in 3 pages. 46-48
14 NNC-10-1 to NNC-10-3 27.4.2010 Email correspondence between the Associate of Justice Heenan and the Applicant regarding the Applicant’s request for the draft judgment (or extempore judgment) delivered by Justice Heenan in CIV 1019 of 2010 at 10.30 am on 21.4.2010 which is the about-turn decision caused by the perversion of justice of the Legal Practice Board referred to above, in 3 pages. These correspondence indicate that Justice Heenan had unreasonably refused to release the draft judgment but instead is preparing another reason judgment which is an after-the-event justification for his compromised draft judgment.
I, Nicholas Ni Kok Chin, Barrister & Solicitor, No. 387, Alexander Drive, Dianella WA 6059, having been duly sworn, say on oath the following:
1. I am filing this Affidavit in support of my NOTICE OF ORIGINATING MOTION dated the same day for the purpose of my making an Application before a Judge in Chambers and if rejected by the Registrar of the Supreme Court of WA for registration THEN in accordance with Order 67 r.5 (3) and (4) of the Rules of Supreme Court, 1971 (WA) which requires me to obtain leave from a Judge of Supreme Court in Chambers, which I now do, if it were necessary for me to do so.
2. The facts herein are true and correct, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Where I identify the source of facts stated as other than from my own personal knowledge, I believe such facts to be true and correct.
3. I firmly believe that this Notice of Originating Motion is not an abuse of process of court, nor is it a frivolous or vexatious proceedings in accordance with Order 67 r.1 of the Rules of Supreme Court, 1971 WA .2009, as follows:
“If any writ, process, motion, application or commission, which is presented for filing, issue or sealing appears to the Registrar to be an abuse of the process of the Court or a frivolous or vexatious proceeding, the Registrar shall refuse to file or issue such writ, process, motion, application or commission without the leave of a Judge or a Master first had and obtained by the party seeking to file or issue it”.
4. This Application for Mandamus Orders is neither frivolous nor vexatious as the evidence before this Honourable Court in CIV 1019 of 2010 and in this Application will show that this Application has a reasonable chance of succeeding, and it would not bring hardship on both Justice Chaney and Justice Heenan to defend my claim that the Pseudo Full Board of the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia is unreasonably curbing my independent legal practice as a lawyer for the purpose of protecting its cronies who are members of the legal profession who has been reasonably found to have been and are still ravaging, plundering and pillaging innocent members of the public by abusing their powers as legal professionals. This is a public interests issue which this Honourable Court should protect. The evidence for these issue has already been made available to this Honourable Court in the many cases, both decided and undecided e.g. CIV 1131 of 2006 and CACV 107 of 2008, CIV 1764 of 2009 and CIV 1903 of 2008 and the many cases of Dr. Kheng Su Chan.
5. I refer to Document No.1, 2, 8 and 9 in the table above which requires me to present my case orally by quoting the relevant extracts of the judgment which could advance my case. I was disallowed this by the learned Justice Heenan who refused me to hear me on them and therefore he denied me natural justice on the 21.4.2010 (See Annexed documents as indicated above). But for this remissness on the part of His Honour, my Application for Certiorari might not have been dismissed by him.
6. In document 9 which is a transcript of the proceedings on 21.4.2010 before Justice Heenan, you will find that there is a sudden about-turn in the attitude of that learned Justice. This is most likely to have come about as a result of the Legal Practice Board seeking to influence him and thereby compromised his independence as a member of the judiciary contrary to mandatory requirements of a Supreme Court Judge in accordance with his Oath of Office. This is a criminal offence by the Legal Practice Board in perverting the course of justice and the stake is very high here as the Pseudo Full Board is scrambling for cover as a result of my Application for Certiorari Orders in CIV 1019 of 2010.
7. If I were to contrast the attitude of Justice Heenan as exhibited by him in the transcript of proceedings in Document 3 and the Orders he issued in Document 4, you will find that the starkness of the change of attitude of Justice Heenan. This is the evidence of the about-turn decision of Justice Heenan which is exhibited in the transcript of the proceedings on 21.4.2010 in document 9.
8. If one were to look at document No. 5 one will find that the Applicant had duly complied with Justice Heenan’s Order issued on 6.4.2010 as indicated in document No.4.
9. Document 6 will show that the Applicant updated SAT and the LPCC with the proceedings for Certiorari Orders Nisi in CIV 1019 of 2010 but there is some resistance as to why Justice Chaney is refusing to provide the copies of the transcript of the proceedings before His Honour in the absence of the Applicant in VR 87 of 2006 on two separate occasions i.e on 4.11.2009 when the ambushed res judicata judgment was accomplished and on 16.2.2010 when the Applicant was away in Sydney and was not able to attend the directions hearing by phone from Sydney. There is a suspicion that things might have transpired in the absence of the Applicant which might provide evidence of a conspiracy between Justice Chaney and the LPCC. Justice Chaney in the evidentiary materials already provided and filed with CIV 1019 of 2010 is reasonably found to have descended in to the arena of conflict in VR 87 of 2009 and have taken the sides of the LPCC when there is no justifications for doing so and he has not responded to my letters to him dated the 15.3.2010 and 17.3.2010 containing 30 questions. His refusal to answer them gives rise to as rebuttable presumption in law that he has admitted them to be the truth.
10. In Document No.7, the Applicant describes in details the various tumultuous events that he had to stumble through in seeking to file his Application for Certiorari Orders that finally emerged as CIV 1019 of 2009 that came for hearing before Justice Heenan. There were many obstructions on the way that he had to contend with right from 30.11.2009 through 14.4.2010.
11. Document 10 indicates that the Applicant is incensed by the injustice before the learned Justice Heenan on the ground that the course of justice had been perverted by the Legal Practice Board ringing His Honour to communicate with him secretly but overtly on the pretext that the LPCC is not going to answer the Applicant’s claim on the live and pertinent and never res judicata issues concerning the indisputable existence of a Pseudo Full Board that was working against the public interests because they have cronies to protect and the best solution for them was to “put the Applicant down” so that he could no longer practice law to right the injustices that have been occurring in Western Australia. His letter and various other letters to both the LPCC and the Board including his letters to Justice Chaney dated 15.3.2010 and 17.3.2010 as indicated above have never been answered. Justice Heenan is refusing to accept the proposition that if the LPCC or the LPB refused to answer pertinent questions relating to the existence of the Pseudo Full Board, then there is a rebuttable presumption in law that the accusations leveled by the Applicant is true unless proven otherwise.
12. Document 11 is the letter written by the Applicant to the Crime Corruption Commission to right this wrong and they are looking into the issue of whether there is a criminal conspiracy between Justice Chaney and LPCC in allowing the frivolous and vexatious persecution of the Applicant in VR87 of 2009 the common-law debarred FURTHER REMEDY for non-existent professional misconduct of the Applicant.
13. Document 12 shows that the Applicant appealed the about-turn and compromised decision of the Justice Heenan delivered extempore on 21.4.2010 but His Honour refused to release a copy of that draft judgment to the Applicant upon his request. His Honour is preferring to prepare a new one to replace his draft judgment which is riddled with inconsistencies, which he intends to publish at a later date. These extraordinary efforts of the learned Justice Heenan is presumably an after-the-event thought by him to fit his revised judgment into the niche by replacing the draft judgment and converting it into a reasoned judgment but the picture that will emerge at a later date that the revised judgment is a “doctored” one produced to suit the particular purpose. Truth must be seen to prevail.
14. Document 13 documents the irate attitude of the President of the Unity Party of WA at the sad state of affairs of the legal system prevailing in this State. This document seeks an explanation from the relevant governmental authorities of this State.
15. Document 14 shows the email correspondence between the Associate of Justice Heenan and the Applicant who is keen to lay his hands on a copy of the draft or extempore judgment of His Honour. There is a final indication that the draft judgment as requested by the Applicant for the purpose of appealing his case in CIV 1019 of 2019 is not forthcoming. This shows that there is no transparency in the apparent perversion of Justice by the Legal Practice Board acting through the learned Justice Heenan who did not intend to do his duties in accordance with his Oath of Office.
SWORN by the Deponent at Perth ]
In the State of Western Australia ]
This 29th day of April, 2010 ]……………………………………………..
Before me:
…………………………………..
Justice of Peace/ Commissioner of the Supreme
Court for Taking Affidavit
Friday, April 30, 2010
APPLICATION FOR MANDAMUS ORDERS: IF I CANNOT PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTERESTS THEN I JUST GIVE UP AND RETIRE
O. 54, R. 5 No. 64
THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CIV NO:……. OF 2010
HELD AT PERTH
In the matter of an application for Mandamus Orders to compel the President of the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (SAT) as the judge in the Applicant’s Application in VR107 of 2008 (the First Judgment) who refused to make the finding that the Pseudo Full Board exist by its very own admissive conduct and is found to be usurping the lawful functions of the real regulator of the Legal Profession in WA without the legal authority of the majority consent of the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia, to perform his duties as a judicial officer in good faith and in accordance with his Oath of Office.
And
In the matter of an application for Mandamus Orders to compel Justice EM Heenan in the Applicant’s Application for Certiorari Orders Nisi in CIV 1019 of 2010 to review and quash the First Judgment and the Second Judgment of Justice Chaney; the latter being his ambushed res judicata judgment delivered on 4.11.2010 in VR 87of 2009 for the common law-debarred Further Remedy of a Non-Existent Professional Misconduct; both the judges, to respond to their duties in the public interests in accordance with their respective Oath of Office as Justices of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
EX PARTE: NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of document: 29th April, 2010
Date of filing: 29th January, 2010.
Filed on behalf of: The Ex parte Applicant
Prepared by:
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN Phone: 08 92757440;
387, Alexander Drive, DIANELLA Mobile: 0421642735
WA 6059
Emails: nnchin@msn.com; nnchin09@tpg.com.au
NOTICE OF ORIGINATING MOTION
TAKE notice that the Supreme Court will be moved at [Perth] on day the day of 2010 at the hour of in the noon, or so soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, by counsel on behalf of A.B. for an order that:
A Writ of Mandamus be issued jointly, to compel the following justices to do their duties in accordance with the Oath of Office, in the following terms:
1) The President of the State Administrative Tribunal, Justice John Chaney (the President) to order Legal Profession Complaints Committee to stay the proceedings in VR87 of 2009 as it is commenced without jurisdiction (the res judicata prosecution);
2) The res judicata prosecution is based on the same issues of facts and law that have already been litigated by the various fora and it is therefore debarred by the common-law principle of “non-accessibility to further remedies” of the absent professional misconduct allegations (the common law barred “further remedy”);
2) The President to make a judicial determination of the issue that the Pseudo
Full Board of the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia exists by virtue of its own admissive conduct (the existence of the Pseudo Board);
3) The existence of the Pseudo Board is created for the purpose of usurping the lawful authority of the real regulator of the legal profession in Western Australia for the clandestine agenda to protect some cronies who are found to be pillaging and plundering innocent members of the public thus causing a detriment to the public interests.
4) The Pseudo Board caused the Legal Practice Board of Western to act in bad faith to the Applicant by seeking to unreasonably curb his independent law practice for no professional misconduct nor deficiency in his professional knowledge.
4) The Honourable Justice Heenan of the Supreme Court of Western Australia to provide a copy of his extempore judgment (draft judgment) to the Applicant to show that he had wrongfully dismissed the Applicant’s Application for Certiorari Orders Nisi in CIV 1019 of 2010 on 21.4.2010 (the Certiorari Orders Application).
5) Justice Heenan not to dismiss the Certiorari Orders Application which he did, without giving reasons as to why his Orders delivered on 21.4.2010 were not based on the First Judgment in VR 107 of 2008 of the President but rather on the two judgments of the President in VR 87 of 2009.
6) Justice Heenan to give reasons as to why he made an about turn decision contrary to his Orders issued by him on 6.4.2010 (requiring the Legal Profession Complaints Committee to answer to the Applicant’s Application for Certiorari Orders) after he had had telephone contact with the Legal Practice Board on the day prior to that decision and he had not given any reason for this about turn decision;
7) Another Justice be appointed specifically to consider the Applicant’s Application for Certiorari Orders in the light of the errors of His Honour Justice Heenan for the purpose of avoiding a member of the judiciary from being compromised by the Pseudo Board;
8) The Legal Practice Board to provide an answer to this Honourable Court as to why it had hitherto allowed the Pseudo Board to usurp its legal functions as the regulator of the legal profession of Western Australia, especially so with regard to the unreasonable curbing of the independent legal practice of the Applicant who is not implicated in any professional misconduct.
or, for the following relief, namely:
1). Stay the malicious persecution of the LPCC acting at the behest of the Pseudo Full Board against the Applicant in VR 87 of 2009 pending the proper determination of CIV 1019 of 2010 or any other relief emanating from this Mandamus Orders Application.
2). The Judgment and consequent Orders of Justice EM Heenan in dismissing the Certiorari Orders Nisi Application in CIV 1019 of 2010 as reflected in his draft
Judgment and his future published judgment be reviewed by another Justice of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
3) The Legal Practice Board and the Legal Profession Complaints Committee acting at the behest of the improperly constituted Pseudo Board without the legal authority of the majority consent of the real regulator of the legal profession in WA be and desist from further perverting the course of justice with impunity.
4) A Declaration by this Honourable Court that the Pseudo Full Board is not acting in good faith and had been abusing its powers to persecute the Applicant maliciously for the secret agenda by implicating him in non-existent common-law debarred FURTHER REMEDY of professional misconduct for the purpose of protecting their cronies who are responsible for abusing their powers as legal professionals by pillaging and plundering innocent members of the public for the purpose of advancing their own private interests and thereby undermining the public interests.
5) The Applicant be put into the same position as he was before he was maliciously persecuted by the Pseudo Full Board from the 12.9.2006 till today by the award of general for pain and suffering and the damage to his reputation as a result of being defamed and of special damages specially related to his loss of income as an independent barrister and solicitor; and that:
6) the costs of and incidental to this [application] may be paid by the respondent.
And further take notice that the grounds of this [application] are:
1. Justice EM Heenan’s dismissal of the Applicant’s Application for Certiorari Orders Nisi in CIV 1019 of 2010 on 21.4.2010 is based upon altogether different premises that were never within the contemplation of both the judge and the Applicant, resulting in a travesty of justice that runs counter to the notion that justice must be palpably seen to be done (the ex-tempore judgment).
2. Justice Heenan made an about-turn decision by reneging on his earlier Orders requiring the Legal Profession Complaints Committee to respond to the Applicant’s Complaint which resulted in the compromise of his judicial independence (the Heenan compromise).
3. The compromise takes after the similarly mirrored Justice John Chaney’s about-turn decision in VR87 of 2009 by abandoning his own orders without giving any reasons in the earlier proceedings at the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) where the Applicant is being persecuted for the common-law debarred claim of further remedy of fictitious professional misconduct irrationally based on res judicata issues of facts and law (the Chaney compromise).
4. Both the Heenan compromise and the Chaney compromise are unaccompanied by explanations and reasons and are inexplicable deviations of judicial conduct expected of public officers who are judicial officers, duly appointed by the Government of Western Australia.
5. The Chaney compromise probably arose out of the Pseudo Full Board criminally perverting the course of justice by its secret communication with that judicial officer; the similar indiscretion perpetrated on the Heenan compromise was disclosed by Justice Heenan on 21.4.2010 to the Applicant resulting in the Applicant having written to the Legal Practice Board to that effect in his letter dated 22.4.2010 for which no answers are forthcoming as occurred on many other occasions.
6. The sources of both the compromise(s) which are travesties of justice, are caused by the Pseudo Board, the existence of which has always been admitted by the regulator of the legal profession; it is palpably seen to be attempting to put the Applicant to “rest” as an officer of the Court and to stop him from doing justice to the public in the public interests on the ground of a secret agenda of the Pseudo Full Board by hood-winking members of the public (the secret agenda).
7. The High Court decision in P36 of 2009 (dismissing the Applicant’s Application for Special Leave to Appeal the First Judgment through the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in CACV 105 of 2008) impinges on the trial judge Justice Chaney’s credibility; this is not an estoppel for the re-litigation of the live issue with regard to the existence of the Pseudo Full Board in any fora on the ground of res judicata, including this one. This means that High Court decision is not a bar to these current proceedings.
8. The secret agenda is its constant and continuous usurpation of the real powers of the official regulator of the legal profession of WA for the purpose of protecting their cronies who are erring lawyers and who are constantly pillaging and plundering innocent members of the public for advancing their own interests, and as such, they are not acting in the public interests. Many cases of innocent people being plundered, both decided and undecided, is already before this Honourable Court, which has a duty to ensure that Western Australia has a viable justice system.
9. The ex-tempore judgment or draft judgment of Justice Heenan is result of the Applicant’s Application to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of WA for prerogative Orders to quash and review the two decisions of the Justice Chaney in SAT (the draft judgment).
10. The draft judgment made references to the two judgments of the Justice Chaney in VR 87 of 2009 dated 4.11.2009 (the first res judicata judgment also referred to as the Second Judgment by the Applicant) and another judgment of Justice Chaney delivered on 10.11.2009 (the second res judicata judgment); Justice Heenan erroneously label them as the First and Second Judgment in his draft judgment.
11. The Applicant made it very clear to Justice Heenan in his said Application that the First and Second Judgments sought to be reviewed and quashed by the Supreme Court are the decisions of Justice Chaney in VR 107 of 2008 (the First Judgment) and the first res judicata judgment in VR 87 of 2009 (the Second Judgment) and not as indicated in paragraph 10 above.
12. The draft judgment is a judgment by Justice Heenan that applied the wrong judgments and therefore it is reasonably expected that if the right judgments were applied, Justice Heenan would have achieved a different judgment altogether in CIV: 1019 of 2010 and His Honour might not even have dismissed the Applicant’s Application (the right decision).
13. Injustice is being done to the Applicant on the ground that he has been denied the right decision but Justice Heenan who has since been informed of his error is now trying to correct that injustice by preparing a reasoned judgment that will be published at a later date; this will replace the draft judgment.
14. Consequently, the Applicant had appealed the draft judgment delivered to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in CACV 41 of 2010. However, the Applicant is intending now to replace that appeal with this Application for the prerogative Orders of Mandamus instead.
15. The purpose of this Application for Mandamus Orders is to avoid unnecessary expenditure of public resources that will achieve the same ends.
(Signed) by the Court
[Form 64 amended in Gazette 29 Apr 2005 p. 1795; 21 Feb 2007 p. 596.]
THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CIV NO:……. OF 2010
HELD AT PERTH
In the matter of an application for Mandamus Orders to compel the President of the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (SAT) as the judge in the Applicant’s Application in VR107 of 2008 (the First Judgment) who refused to make the finding that the Pseudo Full Board exist by its very own admissive conduct and is found to be usurping the lawful functions of the real regulator of the Legal Profession in WA without the legal authority of the majority consent of the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia, to perform his duties as a judicial officer in good faith and in accordance with his Oath of Office.
And
In the matter of an application for Mandamus Orders to compel Justice EM Heenan in the Applicant’s Application for Certiorari Orders Nisi in CIV 1019 of 2010 to review and quash the First Judgment and the Second Judgment of Justice Chaney; the latter being his ambushed res judicata judgment delivered on 4.11.2010 in VR 87of 2009 for the common law-debarred Further Remedy of a Non-Existent Professional Misconduct; both the judges, to respond to their duties in the public interests in accordance with their respective Oath of Office as Justices of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
EX PARTE: NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of document: 29th April, 2010
Date of filing: 29th January, 2010.
Filed on behalf of: The Ex parte Applicant
Prepared by:
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN Phone: 08 92757440;
387, Alexander Drive, DIANELLA Mobile: 0421642735
WA 6059
Emails: nnchin@msn.com; nnchin09@tpg.com.au
NOTICE OF ORIGINATING MOTION
TAKE notice that the Supreme Court will be moved at [Perth] on day the day of 2010 at the hour of in the noon, or so soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, by counsel on behalf of A.B. for an order that:
A Writ of Mandamus be issued jointly, to compel the following justices to do their duties in accordance with the Oath of Office, in the following terms:
1) The President of the State Administrative Tribunal, Justice John Chaney (the President) to order Legal Profession Complaints Committee to stay the proceedings in VR87 of 2009 as it is commenced without jurisdiction (the res judicata prosecution);
2) The res judicata prosecution is based on the same issues of facts and law that have already been litigated by the various fora and it is therefore debarred by the common-law principle of “non-accessibility to further remedies” of the absent professional misconduct allegations (the common law barred “further remedy”);
2) The President to make a judicial determination of the issue that the Pseudo
Full Board of the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia exists by virtue of its own admissive conduct (the existence of the Pseudo Board);
3) The existence of the Pseudo Board is created for the purpose of usurping the lawful authority of the real regulator of the legal profession in Western Australia for the clandestine agenda to protect some cronies who are found to be pillaging and plundering innocent members of the public thus causing a detriment to the public interests.
4) The Pseudo Board caused the Legal Practice Board of Western to act in bad faith to the Applicant by seeking to unreasonably curb his independent law practice for no professional misconduct nor deficiency in his professional knowledge.
4) The Honourable Justice Heenan of the Supreme Court of Western Australia to provide a copy of his extempore judgment (draft judgment) to the Applicant to show that he had wrongfully dismissed the Applicant’s Application for Certiorari Orders Nisi in CIV 1019 of 2010 on 21.4.2010 (the Certiorari Orders Application).
5) Justice Heenan not to dismiss the Certiorari Orders Application which he did, without giving reasons as to why his Orders delivered on 21.4.2010 were not based on the First Judgment in VR 107 of 2008 of the President but rather on the two judgments of the President in VR 87 of 2009.
6) Justice Heenan to give reasons as to why he made an about turn decision contrary to his Orders issued by him on 6.4.2010 (requiring the Legal Profession Complaints Committee to answer to the Applicant’s Application for Certiorari Orders) after he had had telephone contact with the Legal Practice Board on the day prior to that decision and he had not given any reason for this about turn decision;
7) Another Justice be appointed specifically to consider the Applicant’s Application for Certiorari Orders in the light of the errors of His Honour Justice Heenan for the purpose of avoiding a member of the judiciary from being compromised by the Pseudo Board;
8) The Legal Practice Board to provide an answer to this Honourable Court as to why it had hitherto allowed the Pseudo Board to usurp its legal functions as the regulator of the legal profession of Western Australia, especially so with regard to the unreasonable curbing of the independent legal practice of the Applicant who is not implicated in any professional misconduct.
or, for the following relief, namely:
1). Stay the malicious persecution of the LPCC acting at the behest of the Pseudo Full Board against the Applicant in VR 87 of 2009 pending the proper determination of CIV 1019 of 2010 or any other relief emanating from this Mandamus Orders Application.
2). The Judgment and consequent Orders of Justice EM Heenan in dismissing the Certiorari Orders Nisi Application in CIV 1019 of 2010 as reflected in his draft
Judgment and his future published judgment be reviewed by another Justice of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
3) The Legal Practice Board and the Legal Profession Complaints Committee acting at the behest of the improperly constituted Pseudo Board without the legal authority of the majority consent of the real regulator of the legal profession in WA be and desist from further perverting the course of justice with impunity.
4) A Declaration by this Honourable Court that the Pseudo Full Board is not acting in good faith and had been abusing its powers to persecute the Applicant maliciously for the secret agenda by implicating him in non-existent common-law debarred FURTHER REMEDY of professional misconduct for the purpose of protecting their cronies who are responsible for abusing their powers as legal professionals by pillaging and plundering innocent members of the public for the purpose of advancing their own private interests and thereby undermining the public interests.
5) The Applicant be put into the same position as he was before he was maliciously persecuted by the Pseudo Full Board from the 12.9.2006 till today by the award of general for pain and suffering and the damage to his reputation as a result of being defamed and of special damages specially related to his loss of income as an independent barrister and solicitor; and that:
6) the costs of and incidental to this [application] may be paid by the respondent.
And further take notice that the grounds of this [application] are:
1. Justice EM Heenan’s dismissal of the Applicant’s Application for Certiorari Orders Nisi in CIV 1019 of 2010 on 21.4.2010 is based upon altogether different premises that were never within the contemplation of both the judge and the Applicant, resulting in a travesty of justice that runs counter to the notion that justice must be palpably seen to be done (the ex-tempore judgment).
2. Justice Heenan made an about-turn decision by reneging on his earlier Orders requiring the Legal Profession Complaints Committee to respond to the Applicant’s Complaint which resulted in the compromise of his judicial independence (the Heenan compromise).
3. The compromise takes after the similarly mirrored Justice John Chaney’s about-turn decision in VR87 of 2009 by abandoning his own orders without giving any reasons in the earlier proceedings at the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) where the Applicant is being persecuted for the common-law debarred claim of further remedy of fictitious professional misconduct irrationally based on res judicata issues of facts and law (the Chaney compromise).
4. Both the Heenan compromise and the Chaney compromise are unaccompanied by explanations and reasons and are inexplicable deviations of judicial conduct expected of public officers who are judicial officers, duly appointed by the Government of Western Australia.
5. The Chaney compromise probably arose out of the Pseudo Full Board criminally perverting the course of justice by its secret communication with that judicial officer; the similar indiscretion perpetrated on the Heenan compromise was disclosed by Justice Heenan on 21.4.2010 to the Applicant resulting in the Applicant having written to the Legal Practice Board to that effect in his letter dated 22.4.2010 for which no answers are forthcoming as occurred on many other occasions.
6. The sources of both the compromise(s) which are travesties of justice, are caused by the Pseudo Board, the existence of which has always been admitted by the regulator of the legal profession; it is palpably seen to be attempting to put the Applicant to “rest” as an officer of the Court and to stop him from doing justice to the public in the public interests on the ground of a secret agenda of the Pseudo Full Board by hood-winking members of the public (the secret agenda).
7. The High Court decision in P36 of 2009 (dismissing the Applicant’s Application for Special Leave to Appeal the First Judgment through the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in CACV 105 of 2008) impinges on the trial judge Justice Chaney’s credibility; this is not an estoppel for the re-litigation of the live issue with regard to the existence of the Pseudo Full Board in any fora on the ground of res judicata, including this one. This means that High Court decision is not a bar to these current proceedings.
8. The secret agenda is its constant and continuous usurpation of the real powers of the official regulator of the legal profession of WA for the purpose of protecting their cronies who are erring lawyers and who are constantly pillaging and plundering innocent members of the public for advancing their own interests, and as such, they are not acting in the public interests. Many cases of innocent people being plundered, both decided and undecided, is already before this Honourable Court, which has a duty to ensure that Western Australia has a viable justice system.
9. The ex-tempore judgment or draft judgment of Justice Heenan is result of the Applicant’s Application to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of WA for prerogative Orders to quash and review the two decisions of the Justice Chaney in SAT (the draft judgment).
10. The draft judgment made references to the two judgments of the Justice Chaney in VR 87 of 2009 dated 4.11.2009 (the first res judicata judgment also referred to as the Second Judgment by the Applicant) and another judgment of Justice Chaney delivered on 10.11.2009 (the second res judicata judgment); Justice Heenan erroneously label them as the First and Second Judgment in his draft judgment.
11. The Applicant made it very clear to Justice Heenan in his said Application that the First and Second Judgments sought to be reviewed and quashed by the Supreme Court are the decisions of Justice Chaney in VR 107 of 2008 (the First Judgment) and the first res judicata judgment in VR 87 of 2009 (the Second Judgment) and not as indicated in paragraph 10 above.
12. The draft judgment is a judgment by Justice Heenan that applied the wrong judgments and therefore it is reasonably expected that if the right judgments were applied, Justice Heenan would have achieved a different judgment altogether in CIV: 1019 of 2010 and His Honour might not even have dismissed the Applicant’s Application (the right decision).
13. Injustice is being done to the Applicant on the ground that he has been denied the right decision but Justice Heenan who has since been informed of his error is now trying to correct that injustice by preparing a reasoned judgment that will be published at a later date; this will replace the draft judgment.
14. Consequently, the Applicant had appealed the draft judgment delivered to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in CACV 41 of 2010. However, the Applicant is intending now to replace that appeal with this Application for the prerogative Orders of Mandamus instead.
15. The purpose of this Application for Mandamus Orders is to avoid unnecessary expenditure of public resources that will achieve the same ends.
(Signed) by the Court
[Form 64 amended in Gazette 29 Apr 2005 p. 1795; 21 Feb 2007 p. 596.]
MY CONSTERNATION AT THE LACK OF JUSTICE IN OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM
My ref: VR87OF2009; Your ref: S232/09
The Chief Executive Officer
The State Administrative Tribunal Ground Floor, 12 St Georges Terrace Perth
Postal address: GPO Box U1991 Perth 6845
Telephone: (08) 9219 3111 1300 306 017 Fax: (08) 9325 5099 ATTEN: JUDGE PRITCHARD
Dear Sir FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
VR 87 0F 2009: LPCC V CHIN
Thank you for your Notice of Directions Hearing scheduled for 4.5.2010 and the Orders of Her Honour Deputy President dated 28.4.2010. I would like to state the following:
a) A simple solution to my problem that seems not to have been heard by His Honour Justice EM Heenan in my Application for Certiorari Orders in CIV 1019 of 2010 that was delivered on 21.4.2010 and published today, would have been:
a.1. a determination on the live issue that was never litigated at all levels of proceedings so far, concerns the unlawful authority of the Pseudo Board which represents the LPB which did not act in good faith to impose a constraint on my independent legal practice for the secret agenda of protecting their cronies. Everyone is trying to avoid this issue and is refusing to face reality but is putting the blame only on me.
a.2. the res judicata issues of facts and law enveloped by the current action of the LPCC in VR 87 of 2009 that ought never to have been proceeded with because there is never going to be any FURTHER REMEDY of my non-existent professional misconduct on those res judicata issues as they are being proscribed by a common law principle of law, that has been accepted by the High Court of Australia.
b) Based on the above premise, it is pointless for any hearing scheduled on 18.5.2010 to be proceeded
with, regarding those res judicata issues as Justice Chaney is clearly wrong in his res judicata judgment delivered on 4.11.2009 and it would be a waste of governmental resources if SAT were to do so. Even so, the trial as scheduled would not be fair to me unless SAT takes the initiative of calling for all those papers filed in CIV1019 of 2010.
c) I apologize to Justice Heenan for saying this, but it is a fact that the learned Justice did not put his heart and soul into understanding and thereby deciding CIV11019 of 2010 equitably; this has caused me to lodge an Appeal Notice in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in CACV41 of 2010 on the 22.4.2010.
d) I have also lodged documents with the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court to take Mandamus Orders proceedings against the learned Justice Chaney and the learned Justice Heenan so as to compel them to do their duties in accordance with their oath of Office.
e) If I were to receive tremendous resistance in my pursuit of the truths and justice as I have been much maligned, I would just have to give it up and retire and never touch law again. All I am fighting for is for the public interests that lawyers NOT be allowed to plunder and pillage innocent members of the public and get away with it. If I am not allowed to do this by our government, then I would just resign and retire and let others fight these thankless tasks.
f) If you need further information, I will be constantly updating my blogspot, access to which, you can always obtain by Googling my name: nicholasnchin.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
The Principal Registrar
Mr. Keith Frederick Chapman
Supreme Court of WA Stirling Gardens, Barrack Street
PERTH WA 6000 Associate: Tel: 08 9421 5302 Fax: 08 92218350
The Legal Profession Complaints Committee
Atten: Legal Officer Ms. Caroline Brookes PO Box: Z5293, St. Georges Terrace, PERTH WA 6831
Facsimile: 9461 2265
The Chief Executive Officer
The State Administrative Tribunal Ground Floor, 12 St Georges Terrace Perth
Postal address: GPO Box U1991 Perth 6845
Telephone: (08) 9219 3111 1300 306 017 Fax: (08) 9325 5099 ATTEN: JUDGE PRITCHARD
Dear Sir FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
VR 87 0F 2009: LPCC V CHIN
Thank you for your Notice of Directions Hearing scheduled for 4.5.2010 and the Orders of Her Honour Deputy President dated 28.4.2010. I would like to state the following:
a) A simple solution to my problem that seems not to have been heard by His Honour Justice EM Heenan in my Application for Certiorari Orders in CIV 1019 of 2010 that was delivered on 21.4.2010 and published today, would have been:
a.1. a determination on the live issue that was never litigated at all levels of proceedings so far, concerns the unlawful authority of the Pseudo Board which represents the LPB which did not act in good faith to impose a constraint on my independent legal practice for the secret agenda of protecting their cronies. Everyone is trying to avoid this issue and is refusing to face reality but is putting the blame only on me.
a.2. the res judicata issues of facts and law enveloped by the current action of the LPCC in VR 87 of 2009 that ought never to have been proceeded with because there is never going to be any FURTHER REMEDY of my non-existent professional misconduct on those res judicata issues as they are being proscribed by a common law principle of law, that has been accepted by the High Court of Australia.
b) Based on the above premise, it is pointless for any hearing scheduled on 18.5.2010 to be proceeded
with, regarding those res judicata issues as Justice Chaney is clearly wrong in his res judicata judgment delivered on 4.11.2009 and it would be a waste of governmental resources if SAT were to do so. Even so, the trial as scheduled would not be fair to me unless SAT takes the initiative of calling for all those papers filed in CIV1019 of 2010.
c) I apologize to Justice Heenan for saying this, but it is a fact that the learned Justice did not put his heart and soul into understanding and thereby deciding CIV11019 of 2010 equitably; this has caused me to lodge an Appeal Notice in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in CACV41 of 2010 on the 22.4.2010.
d) I have also lodged documents with the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court to take Mandamus Orders proceedings against the learned Justice Chaney and the learned Justice Heenan so as to compel them to do their duties in accordance with their oath of Office.
e) If I were to receive tremendous resistance in my pursuit of the truths and justice as I have been much maligned, I would just have to give it up and retire and never touch law again. All I am fighting for is for the public interests that lawyers NOT be allowed to plunder and pillage innocent members of the public and get away with it. If I am not allowed to do this by our government, then I would just resign and retire and let others fight these thankless tasks.
f) If you need further information, I will be constantly updating my blogspot, access to which, you can always obtain by Googling my name: nicholasnchin.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
The Principal Registrar
Mr. Keith Frederick Chapman
Supreme Court of WA Stirling Gardens, Barrack Street
PERTH WA 6000 Associate: Tel: 08 9421 5302 Fax: 08 92218350
The Legal Profession Complaints Committee
Atten: Legal Officer Ms. Caroline Brookes PO Box: Z5293, St. Georges Terrace, PERTH WA 6831
Facsimile: 9461 2265
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
TRANSCRIPT- CIV1019 OF 2010 BEFORE JUSTICE HEENAN ON 21.4.2010 : CERTIORARI ORDERS NISI DISMISSED UNJUSTIFIABLY - DRAFT JUDGMENT - NOT MADE AVAILABLE
Copyright in this document is reserved to the State of Western Australia. Reproduction of this document (or part thereof, in any format) except with the prior written consent of the attorney-general is prohibited. Please note that under section 43 of the Copyright Act 1968 copyright is not infringed by anything reproduced for the purposes of a judicial proceeding or of a report of a judicial proceeding.
THE SUPREME COURT OF
WESTERN AUSTRALIA
1019 of 2010
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI ORDERS NISI TO REVIEW AND QUASH THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED PRESIDENT JUSTICE CHANEY OF THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (SAT), IN BOTH HIS JUDGMENTS IN VR 107 OF 2008 and VR 87 OF 2009; THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT IMPINGING ON THE PRESIDENT'S CREDIBILITY AND HIS LACK OF INDEPENDENCE AS A JUDGE WARRANTS A REVIEW OF THE FORMER DECISION AND A STRIKING OFF OF THE LATTER ACTION AS AN ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF THE COURT
and
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 67 RULE 5 OF THE RSC, 1971 (WA) FOR LEAVE TO RE-FILE THE AMENDED PAPERS OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION THAT WERE ORIGINALLY RIGHTLY CONSIDERED AND RIGHTLY REFUSED BY THE LEARNED MARTIN CJ ON 14.12.2009 IN CIV 3068 OF 2009 ON GROUNDS THAT THE NOTICE OF ORIGINATING MOTION WERE THEN FOUND TO BE "INCOMPREHENSIBLE, PROLIX AND REPLETE WITH DEROGATORY HYPERBOLE AND DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE JUSTIFIED BY THE FACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE AFFIDAVIT" BUT IT IS NOW NO LONGER DEEMED TO BE SO
ex parte
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
21/4/10 1
(s&c)
HEENAN J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT PERTH ON WEDNESDAY, 21 APRIL 2010, AT 10.40 AM
Continued from 6/4/10
The applicant appeared in person.
2
HEENAN J: Please call the matter.
THE ASSOCIATE: In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, CIV 1019 of 2010, Chin.
HEENAN J: Yes, Mr Chin? Mr Chin, when this matter was last before me, I adjourned the proceedings and ordered that you filed copies of the papers on the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee or the Legal Practice Board. Has that been done?
CHIN, MR: Yes, it has been done, sir.
HEENAN J: Yes. I should inform you that the court was notified yesterday that the Legal Practice Board or Committee does not intend to appear on the application.
CHIN, MR: Thank you very much, sir.
HEENAN J: That being the case, I have heard all your submissions on the last occasion and I am ready to proceed to deal with the matter. Is there anything further which has arisen since the last hearing that you wish to advance?
CHIN, MR: Yes. Ordinarily, sir, this is an application for certiorari.
HEENAN J: Yes, I know what the application is about and I heard you fully on the last occasion. What I want to know is, is there anything new which has happened since then? I have not received any further papers from you.
CHIN, MR: I have, sir, most recently sent by email to your associate Mr Stephen Somerville a copy of the chronology.
HEENAN J: Yes, I do have that.
CHIN, MR: Which details everything that has happened in this case and until most recently I have not heard anything from the LPCC at all. The LPCC was allowed 10 days to respond and they did not respond by the 17th day of April.
HEENAN J: Mr Chin, I'm not sure if you understood what I said earlier. The court has been notified
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: - that the Legal Practice Complaints Committee has received these papers but does not wish to appear, attend or be heard on your application.
CHIN, MR: Yes, sir. There is a presumption in law that if the LPCC did not respond to the specific allegations as contained in my document, they are admitting them to be the
21/4/10 CHIN, MR 3
truth.
HEENAN J: I'm not sure that I can draw any such inference in this case.
CHIN, MR: And, sir, I will be presenting excerpts from the asterisked list of authorities.
HEENAN J: I don't think there is any need or occasion for you to present anything which is already before the court because I haven't had an opportunity to hear you when you made the application originally and I have since re examined all the papers.
CHIN, MR: And, sir, those particular asterisked cases, there were certain words from those charges which I think I should bring to your attention.
HEENAN J: No, there's no need for that, Mr Chin. I heard you when you first made this application on 6 April.
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: And I have since then re-examined the papers, so unless there is something new, I am ready to proceed to deal with the application.
HIS HONOUR: Sir, for the purposes of the record, can I please hand this copy to you so that you will have a chance to read it.
HEENAN J: What is it, Mr Chin?
CHIN, MR: It is about those case law and the chronology that I referred to.
HEENAN J: The time for filing papers has expired. If it is just a matter of chronology, I have the chronology. If it is a reference to cited cases, then these are cases which are already identified in the materials which you have filed. Is that not correct?
CHIN, MR: It is correct, sir. It's only that those particular words that requires your particular attention, that if you hadn't
HEENAN J: Let me see the document and I will decide whether or not
CHIN, MR: Thank you, sir.
HIS HONOUR: Just hand it to the usher. This is the chronology. I already have the chronology.
CHIN, MR: Yes, sir.
HEENAN J: Mr Chin, this seems to me to be a repetition of much of the content and perhaps a recapitulation of the content of your affidavits and submissions. I will receive the document but I am familiar with the substance of what is referred to in here.
CHIN, MR: Thank you very much, sir.
HEENAN J: Does that complete your application?
CHIN, MR: Yes, sir. I would just like to say something. I have time again referred to some members of the judiciary. If I have said anythikng that is offensive, sir, please forgive me because it was never my intention to do so. I am here to do justice to myself. I need to be able to work in the profession that I have chosen.
HEENAN J: Yes; well, there are proceedings pending before you in the Legal Practice Complaints Committee and that is the authority appointed by law and act of parliament to consider allegations against legal practitioners. There is a role for the determination of those proceedings by the State Administrative Tribunal and there are rights of appeal from any such determinations. If you are concerned about your professional interersts and career and you wish to respond and make explanation to allegations against you, then those are the bodies established by law to deal with those matters.
CHIN, MR: Sir, I have been through the State Administrative Tribunal.
HEENAN J: Yes, I know that, and it has made certain decisions.
CHIN, MR: And I have not received justice twice already and if I were to proceed with it, there is already likelihood or real likelihood of bias against me and I'm unlikely to succeed.
HEENAN J: All right. I have heard all this, Mr Chin, and it's in the papers. I am familiar with your contentions.
CHIN, MR: And I believe, sir, the only way that I can get justice is through the retrial prorogative orders through the inherent jurisdiction of this honourable court.
HEENAN J: Yes, very well. You may be seated.
CHIN, MR: Thank you, sir.
(Judgment delivered)
THE SUPREME COURT OF
WESTERN AUSTRALIA
1019 of 2010
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI ORDERS NISI TO REVIEW AND QUASH THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED PRESIDENT JUSTICE CHANEY OF THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (SAT), IN BOTH HIS JUDGMENTS IN VR 107 OF 2008 and VR 87 OF 2009; THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT IMPINGING ON THE PRESIDENT'S CREDIBILITY AND HIS LACK OF INDEPENDENCE AS A JUDGE WARRANTS A REVIEW OF THE FORMER DECISION AND A STRIKING OFF OF THE LATTER ACTION AS AN ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF THE COURT
and
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 67 RULE 5 OF THE RSC, 1971 (WA) FOR LEAVE TO RE-FILE THE AMENDED PAPERS OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION THAT WERE ORIGINALLY RIGHTLY CONSIDERED AND RIGHTLY REFUSED BY THE LEARNED MARTIN CJ ON 14.12.2009 IN CIV 3068 OF 2009 ON GROUNDS THAT THE NOTICE OF ORIGINATING MOTION WERE THEN FOUND TO BE "INCOMPREHENSIBLE, PROLIX AND REPLETE WITH DEROGATORY HYPERBOLE AND DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE JUSTIFIED BY THE FACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE AFFIDAVIT" BUT IT IS NOW NO LONGER DEEMED TO BE SO
ex parte
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
21/4/10 1
(s&c)
HEENAN J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT PERTH ON WEDNESDAY, 21 APRIL 2010, AT 10.40 AM
Continued from 6/4/10
The applicant appeared in person.
2
HEENAN J: Please call the matter.
THE ASSOCIATE: In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, CIV 1019 of 2010, Chin.
HEENAN J: Yes, Mr Chin? Mr Chin, when this matter was last before me, I adjourned the proceedings and ordered that you filed copies of the papers on the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee or the Legal Practice Board. Has that been done?
CHIN, MR: Yes, it has been done, sir.
HEENAN J: Yes. I should inform you that the court was notified yesterday that the Legal Practice Board or Committee does not intend to appear on the application.
CHIN, MR: Thank you very much, sir.
HEENAN J: That being the case, I have heard all your submissions on the last occasion and I am ready to proceed to deal with the matter. Is there anything further which has arisen since the last hearing that you wish to advance?
CHIN, MR: Yes. Ordinarily, sir, this is an application for certiorari.
HEENAN J: Yes, I know what the application is about and I heard you fully on the last occasion. What I want to know is, is there anything new which has happened since then? I have not received any further papers from you.
CHIN, MR: I have, sir, most recently sent by email to your associate Mr Stephen Somerville a copy of the chronology.
HEENAN J: Yes, I do have that.
CHIN, MR: Which details everything that has happened in this case and until most recently I have not heard anything from the LPCC at all. The LPCC was allowed 10 days to respond and they did not respond by the 17th day of April.
HEENAN J: Mr Chin, I'm not sure if you understood what I said earlier. The court has been notified
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: - that the Legal Practice Complaints Committee has received these papers but does not wish to appear, attend or be heard on your application.
CHIN, MR: Yes, sir. There is a presumption in law that if the LPCC did not respond to the specific allegations as contained in my document, they are admitting them to be the
21/4/10 CHIN, MR 3
truth.
HEENAN J: I'm not sure that I can draw any such inference in this case.
CHIN, MR: And, sir, I will be presenting excerpts from the asterisked list of authorities.
HEENAN J: I don't think there is any need or occasion for you to present anything which is already before the court because I haven't had an opportunity to hear you when you made the application originally and I have since re examined all the papers.
CHIN, MR: And, sir, those particular asterisked cases, there were certain words from those charges which I think I should bring to your attention.
HEENAN J: No, there's no need for that, Mr Chin. I heard you when you first made this application on 6 April.
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: And I have since then re-examined the papers, so unless there is something new, I am ready to proceed to deal with the application.
HIS HONOUR: Sir, for the purposes of the record, can I please hand this copy to you so that you will have a chance to read it.
HEENAN J: What is it, Mr Chin?
CHIN, MR: It is about those case law and the chronology that I referred to.
HEENAN J: The time for filing papers has expired. If it is just a matter of chronology, I have the chronology. If it is a reference to cited cases, then these are cases which are already identified in the materials which you have filed. Is that not correct?
CHIN, MR: It is correct, sir. It's only that those particular words that requires your particular attention, that if you hadn't
HEENAN J: Let me see the document and I will decide whether or not
CHIN, MR: Thank you, sir.
HIS HONOUR: Just hand it to the usher. This is the chronology. I already have the chronology.
CHIN, MR: Yes, sir.
HEENAN J: Mr Chin, this seems to me to be a repetition of much of the content and perhaps a recapitulation of the content of your affidavits and submissions. I will receive the document but I am familiar with the substance of what is referred to in here.
CHIN, MR: Thank you very much, sir.
HEENAN J: Does that complete your application?
CHIN, MR: Yes, sir. I would just like to say something. I have time again referred to some members of the judiciary. If I have said anythikng that is offensive, sir, please forgive me because it was never my intention to do so. I am here to do justice to myself. I need to be able to work in the profession that I have chosen.
HEENAN J: Yes; well, there are proceedings pending before you in the Legal Practice Complaints Committee and that is the authority appointed by law and act of parliament to consider allegations against legal practitioners. There is a role for the determination of those proceedings by the State Administrative Tribunal and there are rights of appeal from any such determinations. If you are concerned about your professional interersts and career and you wish to respond and make explanation to allegations against you, then those are the bodies established by law to deal with those matters.
CHIN, MR: Sir, I have been through the State Administrative Tribunal.
HEENAN J: Yes, I know that, and it has made certain decisions.
CHIN, MR: And I have not received justice twice already and if I were to proceed with it, there is already likelihood or real likelihood of bias against me and I'm unlikely to succeed.
HEENAN J: All right. I have heard all this, Mr Chin, and it's in the papers. I am familiar with your contentions.
CHIN, MR: And I believe, sir, the only way that I can get justice is through the retrial prorogative orders through the inherent jurisdiction of this honourable court.
HEENAN J: Yes, very well. You may be seated.
CHIN, MR: Thank you, sir.
(Judgment delivered)
Monday, April 26, 2010
APPLICANT IN CIV1019 OF 2010 DID NOT RECEIVE A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEOFRE JUSTICE HEENAN ON 21.4.2010
RE: 1019/10
From: Nicholas N Chin (nnchin@msn.com)
Sent: Tuesday, 27 April 2010 11:55:15 AM
To: courttranscriptsc@justice.wa.gov.au; stephen.somerville@justice.wa.gov.au; Eddie Hwang (eddieh@westnet.com.au)
Attachments:
100421[1]TRANSCRIPT-HEENAN-CIV1019OF2010-210410.doc (39.5 KB)
Mr. Jarrad Waters
Court Transcript Officer
Supreme Court of WA
Mr. Stephen Sommerville
Associate to Justice Heenan
Supreme Court of WA
Dear Sirs
I found that the attached transcript in four pages that do not contain the judgment delivered by His Honour. I have objected to the Judgment which contains serious errors of law and facts with regard to the nature of the my Application for Certiorari Orders which was misconceived by the learned Justice Heenan on the ground that it be reviewed. His Honour in dismissing my Application was confused as to the one of the two judgments which forms the subject of my Application. The First Judgment of Justice Chaney in VR 107 of 2008 delivered on 25.10.2008 was not considered in Justice Heenan judgment.
Please supply me with the appropriate contents of the ex-tempore judgment delivered by His Honour on the 21.4.2010 which came after the preliminaries which is found in the attached transcript of four pages that you have just sent to me. I would like a complete transcript of the proceedings, without which I would not be able to write my grounds of Appeal.
Cheers
NICHOLAS N CHIN
387, ALEXANDER DRIVE
DIANELLA WA 6059
Phone: +61892757440 +61892757440
Mobile: +61421642735 +61421642735
Email: nnchin@msn.com; nnchin1@gmail.com; nnchin09@tpg.com.au
From: CourtTranscriptSC@justice.wa.gov.au
Subject: 1019/10
To: nnchin@msn.com
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:27:50 +0800
Hello Nicholas,
Transcript attached.
Regards,
Jarrad Waters
Court Technology Officer
Supreme Court of Western Australia
(08)94215377 (08)94215377
(See attached file: 100421.doc)
From: Nicholas N Chin (nnchin@msn.com)
Sent: Tuesday, 27 April 2010 11:55:15 AM
To: courttranscriptsc@justice.wa.gov.au; stephen.somerville@justice.wa.gov.au; Eddie Hwang (eddieh@westnet.com.au)
Attachments:
100421[1]TRANSCRIPT-HEENAN-CIV1019OF2010-210410.doc (39.5 KB)
Mr. Jarrad Waters
Court Transcript Officer
Supreme Court of WA
Mr. Stephen Sommerville
Associate to Justice Heenan
Supreme Court of WA
Dear Sirs
I found that the attached transcript in four pages that do not contain the judgment delivered by His Honour. I have objected to the Judgment which contains serious errors of law and facts with regard to the nature of the my Application for Certiorari Orders which was misconceived by the learned Justice Heenan on the ground that it be reviewed. His Honour in dismissing my Application was confused as to the one of the two judgments which forms the subject of my Application. The First Judgment of Justice Chaney in VR 107 of 2008 delivered on 25.10.2008 was not considered in Justice Heenan judgment.
Please supply me with the appropriate contents of the ex-tempore judgment delivered by His Honour on the 21.4.2010 which came after the preliminaries which is found in the attached transcript of four pages that you have just sent to me. I would like a complete transcript of the proceedings, without which I would not be able to write my grounds of Appeal.
Cheers
NICHOLAS N CHIN
387, ALEXANDER DRIVE
DIANELLA WA 6059
Phone: +61892757440 +61892757440
Mobile: +61421642735 +61421642735
Email: nnchin@msn.com; nnchin1@gmail.com; nnchin09@tpg.com.au
From: CourtTranscriptSC@justice.wa.gov.au
Subject: 1019/10
To: nnchin@msn.com
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:27:50 +0800
Hello Nicholas,
Transcript attached.
Regards,
Jarrad Waters
Court Technology Officer
Supreme Court of Western Australia
(08)94215377 (08)94215377
(See attached file: 100421.doc)
LETTER TO THE CRIME CORRUPTION COMMISSION REGARDING THE SALIENT ISSUE OF THE PSEUDO FULL BOARD OF THE LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD
The Commissioner,
The Hon Len Roberts-Smith, QC.
Corruption and Crime Commission
Postal Address: PO Box 7667 Cloisters Square Perth WA 6850
Street Address: 186 St Georges Terrace Perth WA
Phone: (08) 9215 4888 Tollfree: 1800 809 000 Fax: (08) 9215 4884
Email: info@ccc.wa.gov.au
Friday, April 23, 2010
Dear Sir
COMPLAINT AGAINST THE PSEUDO BOARD OF THE LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD, THE PRESIDENT OF SAT JUSTICE CHANEY AND REGISTRAR DAVID POWELL
I refer to my telephone conversation with your Mr. Robinson when I found out that I had been misled into believing that my complaints lodged with Mr. Robert Hellier has always been acted upon by him.
1. I have not received any information from Mr. Hellier to the effect that my complaint against Justice Chaney has been closed. I want this Complaint to be revived and wish that you give me a full explanation as to why this particular complaint is not being addressed by the Commission. The dismissal of my Application for Special Leave to the High Court in P36 of 2009 given on 10.3.2010 rests on the credibility of Justice Chaney being unimpeached. Justice Chaney’s refusal to make a determination of the live issue of the illegality of the Pseudo Board of the Legal Practice Board impinges on his credibility as the trial judge in VR 107 of 2008. This live issue therefore has never been decided by the High Court of Australia in P36 of 2009 and therefore this live issue is never a res judicata issue and I could take it up again in any forum. I have taken up this live issue in CIV 1019 of 2010 with a two pronged attack on the credibility of the Justice Chaney to review and quash both his decisions in the two judgments of VR 107 of 2008 and VR 87 of 2009. In the latter judgment, Justice Chaney is clearly seen to be conspiring with the LPCC to persecute me for the further remedy on all those res judicata issues of facts and law that had already been decided in the various forums and that he knew that he could not do so in accordance with the law acting hand in hand with the LPCC and he still insists in doing so.
2. I do not agree that my complaint against Registrar Powell for conspiracy with Mr. David Taylor to commit a crime of the falsifications of court records in CIV 1131 of 2006 should await the final outcome of my Application for Special Leave in the High Court in P1 of 2010. It is very clear from the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Chin v Hall in CACV 107 of 2008 at paragraphs 54 and 55 that the evidence provided by Registrar Powell shows that he unsuccessfully tried to cover up the falsified records. Those records marked DGT 13 and 14 as annexed to the Affidavit of Mr. David Taylor sworn 29.3.2007 show that there was never a deposit of the court fees of either $654.00 or $654.20 for the Writ of Summons in CIV 1131 of 2006 on 10.2.2006 but only on 16.2.2006 as the falsified documents themselves tell a lie about themselves. There is never a need or dependence of the Commission for a decision of the High Court in P1 of 2010 to explain this wrong. Therefore, to await its decision is an error of Mr. Roger Hellier in the exercise of his discretion, which should be corrected by the Commission.
3. The live issue of the Pseudo Board has always been admitted to by the Legal Practice Board in all its dealings with me and had even resulted in its willingness to submit itself to a consent judgment before the learned Justice Steytler in CACV 43 of 2007. This live issue is a reality but it has always been avoided by the Justice Chaney and there is up to date no legal determination based on this live issue. This live issue is therefore never res judicata and is an issue before the learned Justice Heenan in CIV 1019 of 2010 which is an Ex parte Application made by me for the purpose of Certiorari Orders to quash both the First and Second Judgments of Justice Chaney. On 20.4.2010, Justice Heenan received a telephone call from the Legal Practice Board and this made him to make a turnabout decision just as it had probably happened to Justice Chaney in the past. On two occasions, both Justice Chaney and Justice Heenan issued orders that were supposed to be complied with by the LPCC but it turned out that the LPCC did not wish to carry out its investigative authority to do the right thing but is always subject to the becks and calls of the Pseudo Board. The Pseudo Board is very powerful and is bent on continuing to do the wrong thing so much so that Justice Heenan unjustifiably erred in his judgment which is the subject of appeal in CACV 41 of 2010 for which I have requested the Real Board to interfere by righting the injustice by way of Review, which is its bounden duty to do so.
In conclusion, I would like to thank Mr. Robinson for promising me to look into this matter on the coming Tuesday so that my Complaint on the three issues shall be investigated by the Commission with utmost good faith. It is in the public interest that the Commission should be looking into these issues so that innocent members of the public shall not continue to be robbed, pillaged and plundered again and again by erring members of the legal profession and for whose protection, the Pseudo Board had been sanctioning me for no rhyme and reason. Examples in point are Dr. Kheng Su Chan, Mr. Alessandro Bertini etc. I express my wish that justice must be seen to be done and it is within the powers of the Commission to ensure that our legal system is enabled to provide me this fair justice that I am asking for and nothing more. I have no evil intention to hurt anyone.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
The Hon Len Roberts-Smith, QC.
Corruption and Crime Commission
Postal Address: PO Box 7667 Cloisters Square Perth WA 6850
Street Address: 186 St Georges Terrace Perth WA
Phone: (08) 9215 4888 Tollfree: 1800 809 000 Fax: (08) 9215 4884
Email: info@ccc.wa.gov.au
Friday, April 23, 2010
Dear Sir
COMPLAINT AGAINST THE PSEUDO BOARD OF THE LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD, THE PRESIDENT OF SAT JUSTICE CHANEY AND REGISTRAR DAVID POWELL
I refer to my telephone conversation with your Mr. Robinson when I found out that I had been misled into believing that my complaints lodged with Mr. Robert Hellier has always been acted upon by him.
1. I have not received any information from Mr. Hellier to the effect that my complaint against Justice Chaney has been closed. I want this Complaint to be revived and wish that you give me a full explanation as to why this particular complaint is not being addressed by the Commission. The dismissal of my Application for Special Leave to the High Court in P36 of 2009 given on 10.3.2010 rests on the credibility of Justice Chaney being unimpeached. Justice Chaney’s refusal to make a determination of the live issue of the illegality of the Pseudo Board of the Legal Practice Board impinges on his credibility as the trial judge in VR 107 of 2008. This live issue therefore has never been decided by the High Court of Australia in P36 of 2009 and therefore this live issue is never a res judicata issue and I could take it up again in any forum. I have taken up this live issue in CIV 1019 of 2010 with a two pronged attack on the credibility of the Justice Chaney to review and quash both his decisions in the two judgments of VR 107 of 2008 and VR 87 of 2009. In the latter judgment, Justice Chaney is clearly seen to be conspiring with the LPCC to persecute me for the further remedy on all those res judicata issues of facts and law that had already been decided in the various forums and that he knew that he could not do so in accordance with the law acting hand in hand with the LPCC and he still insists in doing so.
2. I do not agree that my complaint against Registrar Powell for conspiracy with Mr. David Taylor to commit a crime of the falsifications of court records in CIV 1131 of 2006 should await the final outcome of my Application for Special Leave in the High Court in P1 of 2010. It is very clear from the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Chin v Hall in CACV 107 of 2008 at paragraphs 54 and 55 that the evidence provided by Registrar Powell shows that he unsuccessfully tried to cover up the falsified records. Those records marked DGT 13 and 14 as annexed to the Affidavit of Mr. David Taylor sworn 29.3.2007 show that there was never a deposit of the court fees of either $654.00 or $654.20 for the Writ of Summons in CIV 1131 of 2006 on 10.2.2006 but only on 16.2.2006 as the falsified documents themselves tell a lie about themselves. There is never a need or dependence of the Commission for a decision of the High Court in P1 of 2010 to explain this wrong. Therefore, to await its decision is an error of Mr. Roger Hellier in the exercise of his discretion, which should be corrected by the Commission.
3. The live issue of the Pseudo Board has always been admitted to by the Legal Practice Board in all its dealings with me and had even resulted in its willingness to submit itself to a consent judgment before the learned Justice Steytler in CACV 43 of 2007. This live issue is a reality but it has always been avoided by the Justice Chaney and there is up to date no legal determination based on this live issue. This live issue is therefore never res judicata and is an issue before the learned Justice Heenan in CIV 1019 of 2010 which is an Ex parte Application made by me for the purpose of Certiorari Orders to quash both the First and Second Judgments of Justice Chaney. On 20.4.2010, Justice Heenan received a telephone call from the Legal Practice Board and this made him to make a turnabout decision just as it had probably happened to Justice Chaney in the past. On two occasions, both Justice Chaney and Justice Heenan issued orders that were supposed to be complied with by the LPCC but it turned out that the LPCC did not wish to carry out its investigative authority to do the right thing but is always subject to the becks and calls of the Pseudo Board. The Pseudo Board is very powerful and is bent on continuing to do the wrong thing so much so that Justice Heenan unjustifiably erred in his judgment which is the subject of appeal in CACV 41 of 2010 for which I have requested the Real Board to interfere by righting the injustice by way of Review, which is its bounden duty to do so.
In conclusion, I would like to thank Mr. Robinson for promising me to look into this matter on the coming Tuesday so that my Complaint on the three issues shall be investigated by the Commission with utmost good faith. It is in the public interest that the Commission should be looking into these issues so that innocent members of the public shall not continue to be robbed, pillaged and plundered again and again by erring members of the legal profession and for whose protection, the Pseudo Board had been sanctioning me for no rhyme and reason. Examples in point are Dr. Kheng Su Chan, Mr. Alessandro Bertini etc. I express my wish that justice must be seen to be done and it is within the powers of the Commission to ensure that our legal system is enabled to provide me this fair justice that I am asking for and nothing more. I have no evil intention to hurt anyone.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
LETTER FROM UNITY PARTY OF WA TO CRIME CORRUPTION COMMISSIONER AND PARLIAMENTARY INSPECTOR
From: Unity Party WA [mailto:UnityPartyWA@westnet.com.au]
Sent: Monday, 26 April 2010 11:22 AM
To: Commissioner- CCC wa
Subject: Fw: COMMUNICATION BY LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD CAUSE A REVERSAL OF JUSTICE HEENAN DECISION IN CIV 1019 OF 1019 OF 2010 on 21.4.2010
Mr. Len Roberts-Smith, QC
Commissioner - WA Corruption and Crime Commission,
info@ccc.wa.gov.au
Dear Commissioner,
We refer to our email to the Attorney General this morning and would be grateful if you could comment, please.
We look forward to hearing from you in the not too distance future.
Yours sincerely,
Eddie Hwang
----- Original Message -----
From: Unity Party WA
To: Attorney General - WA
Cc: Nicholas Chin ; Premier - WA ; Ombudsman - WA ; piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 8:05 AM
Commissioner - Subject: Fw: COMMUNICATION BY LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD CAUSE A REVERSAL OF JUSTICE HEENAN DECISION IN CIV 1019 OF 1019 OF 2010 on 21.4.2010
Mr. Christian Porter,
WA Attorney General,
Minister.Porter@dpc.wa.gov.au
Dear Attorney General,
We refer to the attachments above for your information.
We are very concern about our Member Mr. Nicholas N Chin's allegations regarding the judicial system operating in Western Australia and would like to seek your view on this very important matter before we refer to other various authorities.
We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours respectfully,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitywa
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
Date: 26-Apr-2010.
Environmental friendly-Save the trees-Use Email
Can you afford to give Telstra/Bigpond a try?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicholas N Chin"
To: "'Unity Party WA'"
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 7:06 PM
Subject: FW: COMMUNICATION BY LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD CAUSE A REVERSAL OF JUSTICE HEENAN DECISION IN CIV 1019 OF 1019 OF 2010 on 21.4.2010
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas N Chin [mailto:nnchin09@tpg.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 23 April 2010 12:15 PM
To: 'piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au'
Cc: 'nnchin1@gmail.com'
Subject: FW: COMMUNICATION BY LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD CAUSE A REVERSAL OF
JUSTICE HEENAN DECISION IN CIV 1019 OF 1019 OF 2010 on 21.4.2010
Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission
Locked Bag 123
Perth Business Centre WA 6849
Email: piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au
Dear Dr. Steytler
Please look into the most recent happenings in the Supreme Court of WA.The learned Justice Heenan was contacted by the Legal Practice Board which resulted in the reversal of the upcoming trend of his decision. I applied for the quashing and review for the First Judgment of Justice Chaney in VR 107 of 2008 and the Second Res Judicata Judgment of the 4.11.2010 but Justice Heenan again ignored the salient issue of the Pseudo Full Board which usurp the Legal Practice Board to protect their cronies who plundered and pillaged innocent members of the public with impunity. The salient issue of the Pseudo Board without the valid authority of the real Board seems always to be avoided and this live issue is never res judicata right even today.
Justice Heenan refused to look at the issue that there is never to be a Further Remedy for the vexatious professional misconduct claim in VR87 of 2009 proposed by the LPCC and propelled by the Pseudo Board. The law clearly does not allow a further prosecution on res judicata issues of facts and law already determined by SAT, the LPCC, the Court of Appeal and the High Court of Australia.
Please help me to access justice. The email below is my related communication with the Crime Corruption Commission of Western Australia.
Cheers
NICHOLAS N CHIN
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas N Chin [mailto:nnchin09@tpg.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 23 April 2010 12:02 PM
To: 'Roger.Hellier@ccc.wa.gov.au'
Cc: 'nnchin1@gmail.com'
Subject: COMMUNICATION BY LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD CAUSE A REVERSAL OF JUSTICE
HEENAN DECISION IN CIV 1019 OF 1019 OF 2010 on 21.4.2010
Mr. Roger Hellier
Ms. Helen Stamp
Corruption and Crime Commission
Postal Address:
PO Box 7667
Cloisters Square
Perth WA 6850
Street Address:
186 St Georges Terrace
Perth WA
Phone: (08) 9215 4888
Tollfree: 1800 809 000
Fax: (08) 9215 4884
Email: info@ccc.wa.gov.au
Dear Mr. Hellier and Ms. Stamp:
Please find a copy of my two page letters addressed to Ms. Miranda Breisch,
Professional Affairs Officer of the Legal Pratice Board dated 23.4.2010
copied to the LPCC, the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, the State
Administrative Tribunal, the Attorney General of Western Australia and the
Ombudsman of Western Australia for your information and action.
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
Shortcut to: C:\Documents and Settings\Irene\Desktop\My
Pictures\lpb-lpcc-HEENANCIV1019-230410L
Sent: Monday, 26 April 2010 11:22 AM
To: Commissioner- CCC wa
Subject: Fw: COMMUNICATION BY LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD CAUSE A REVERSAL OF JUSTICE HEENAN DECISION IN CIV 1019 OF 1019 OF 2010 on 21.4.2010
Mr. Len Roberts-Smith, QC
Commissioner - WA Corruption and Crime Commission,
info@ccc.wa.gov.au
Dear Commissioner,
We refer to our email to the Attorney General this morning and would be grateful if you could comment, please.
We look forward to hearing from you in the not too distance future.
Yours sincerely,
Eddie Hwang
----- Original Message -----
From: Unity Party WA
To: Attorney General - WA
Cc: Nicholas Chin ; Premier - WA ; Ombudsman - WA ; piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 8:05 AM
Commissioner - Subject: Fw: COMMUNICATION BY LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD CAUSE A REVERSAL OF JUSTICE HEENAN DECISION IN CIV 1019 OF 1019 OF 2010 on 21.4.2010
Mr. Christian Porter,
WA Attorney General,
Minister.Porter@dpc.wa.gov.au
Dear Attorney General,
We refer to the attachments above for your information.
We are very concern about our Member Mr. Nicholas N Chin's allegations regarding the judicial system operating in Western Australia and would like to seek your view on this very important matter before we refer to other various authorities.
We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours respectfully,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitywa
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
Date: 26-Apr-2010.
Environmental friendly-Save the trees-Use Email
Can you afford to give Telstra/Bigpond a try?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicholas N Chin"
To: "'Unity Party WA'"
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 7:06 PM
Subject: FW: COMMUNICATION BY LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD CAUSE A REVERSAL OF JUSTICE HEENAN DECISION IN CIV 1019 OF 1019 OF 2010 on 21.4.2010
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas N Chin [mailto:nnchin09@tpg.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 23 April 2010 12:15 PM
To: 'piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au'
Cc: 'nnchin1@gmail.com'
Subject: FW: COMMUNICATION BY LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD CAUSE A REVERSAL OF
JUSTICE HEENAN DECISION IN CIV 1019 OF 1019 OF 2010 on 21.4.2010
Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission
Locked Bag 123
Perth Business Centre WA 6849
Email: piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au
Dear Dr. Steytler
Please look into the most recent happenings in the Supreme Court of WA.The learned Justice Heenan was contacted by the Legal Practice Board which resulted in the reversal of the upcoming trend of his decision. I applied for the quashing and review for the First Judgment of Justice Chaney in VR 107 of 2008 and the Second Res Judicata Judgment of the 4.11.2010 but Justice Heenan again ignored the salient issue of the Pseudo Full Board which usurp the Legal Practice Board to protect their cronies who plundered and pillaged innocent members of the public with impunity. The salient issue of the Pseudo Board without the valid authority of the real Board seems always to be avoided and this live issue is never res judicata right even today.
Justice Heenan refused to look at the issue that there is never to be a Further Remedy for the vexatious professional misconduct claim in VR87 of 2009 proposed by the LPCC and propelled by the Pseudo Board. The law clearly does not allow a further prosecution on res judicata issues of facts and law already determined by SAT, the LPCC, the Court of Appeal and the High Court of Australia.
Please help me to access justice. The email below is my related communication with the Crime Corruption Commission of Western Australia.
Cheers
NICHOLAS N CHIN
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas N Chin [mailto:nnchin09@tpg.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 23 April 2010 12:02 PM
To: 'Roger.Hellier@ccc.wa.gov.au'
Cc: 'nnchin1@gmail.com'
Subject: COMMUNICATION BY LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD CAUSE A REVERSAL OF JUSTICE
HEENAN DECISION IN CIV 1019 OF 1019 OF 2010 on 21.4.2010
Mr. Roger Hellier
Ms. Helen Stamp
Corruption and Crime Commission
Postal Address:
PO Box 7667
Cloisters Square
Perth WA 6850
Street Address:
186 St Georges Terrace
Perth WA
Phone: (08) 9215 4888
Tollfree: 1800 809 000
Fax: (08) 9215 4884
Email: info@ccc.wa.gov.au
Dear Mr. Hellier and Ms. Stamp:
Please find a copy of my two page letters addressed to Ms. Miranda Breisch,
Professional Affairs Officer of the Legal Pratice Board dated 23.4.2010
copied to the LPCC, the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, the State
Administrative Tribunal, the Attorney General of Western Australia and the
Ombudsman of Western Australia for your information and action.
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
Shortcut to: C:\Documents and Settings\Irene\Desktop\My
Pictures\lpb-lpcc-HEENANCIV1019-230410L
Thursday, April 22, 2010
LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD COMMUNICATED WITH JUSTICE HEENAN AND THE LPCC DO NOT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH JUSTICE HEENAN'S ORDER DATED 6.4.2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
Legal Practice Board of Western Australia
5th Floor, Kings Building
533 Hay Street PERTH WA 6000 Telephone: (08) 6211 3600 Facsimile: (08) 9325 2743
Email: general@lpbwa.com Atten: Ms. Miranda Breisch
Dear Sir
THE LEGAL PRACTTICE BOARD PERVERTED THE COURSE OF JUSTICE BY CONTACTING JUSTICE EM HEENAN ON 20.4.2010 IN MY EXPARTE APPLICATION IN CIV 1019 OF 2010
I refer to the above matter and would like to state as follows:
a) I was present at the proceedings before His Honour Justice Heenan at Court room 13.1 at the Level 13 of the Supreme Court of Perth at No.111, St. George’s Terrace, Perth WA on 21.4.2010 at 10.30 am.
b) During the course of this ex-parte application for certiorari Orders, the learned Justice Heenan made an about-turn of his previous decision and dismissed my application irrationally which is directly caused by the telephone call made by the Legal Practice Board to him on 20.4.2010.
c) The reason why I am stating that Justice Heenan made an about-turn in his decision stems from the fact that he on the 6.4.2010 issued an order that I serve all the relevant papers on the LPCC within 2 days and that the LPCC do respond to my ex-parte Application within 10 days which Order was not complied with by the LPCC by the latest date 17.4.2010.
d) It is illogical for Justice Heenan to issue an order which was not complied with by the LPCC and a subsequent telephone call by the Legal Practice Board had thereby compromised his judicial independence and had thereby stopped him from executing his duties as a judicial officer.
h) The same state of affairs exist with regard to the learned President of the State Administrative Tribunal in VR 87 of 2009 which caused an about-turn in his decision and changed his mind with regard to the due compliance of Orders already issued by him to the LPCC to respond to my Response for the malicious and improper persecution of me on the res judicata issues of facts and law in VR87 of 2009.
i) Judicial Officers are not usually so inconsistent as to issue Orders and then subsequently be found to be reneging on their decision for the due compliance of those Orders without any reasons or explanations being tendered by the other party; and disregarding me as an ex-parte applicant by not giving me any due notifications but causing the judicial officer to be less than independent.
j) It is a well-known law that judicial officers and any other party who interferes with the course of justice or who perverts the course of justice is committing a criminal offence and should be appropriately dealt with by citing him or them for contempt of court. It looks like some parties are immune from the proper exercise of jurisdiction of the court
k) I do not understand that the sole salient feature that run through the whole fabric of my case with the regulator of the legal profession has always been avoided by the Board and the judicial officers: namely, the existence of a Pseudo Board usurping the authority of the real Board to exercise an invalid authority to sanction me for no wrongs with a secret agenda to protect its own cronies who have been pillaging and plundering innocent members of the public with impunity.
l) As long as this salient issue is not been logically and legally determined by the contending parties, this issue remains a source of contention that can be taken up at any level of the legal system in Australia. I may have been to the High Court of Australia in P.36 of 2009 in my Special Application for Leave to Appeal which was dismissed on 10.3.2010 but that does not mean that I can no longer bring up this issue for determination again on that this salient issue can never be barred by the principle of res judicata. It is clear that Justice Chaney in VR 107 of 2008 avoid the determination of this issue. It is also clear that Justice Chaney can never get down into the arena of conflict by conspiring with the LPCC to persecute me for the further frivolous and vexatious remedy of professional misconduct upon issues of facts and law which is already res judicata.
m) The failure of the LPCC to comply with the Orders of Justice Heenan in CIV 1019 of 2010 means that the LPCC is continuing to harbour criminals and wrong doers who have been pillaging and plundering innocent members of the public but is keen to avoid the Supreme Court from finding out the truths and to help it to dispense fair justice to me.
n) I have asked His Honour Justice Chaney or the LPCC to help Justice to explain why he is taking the sides of the LPCC in VR87 of 2009 in my two letters dated 15.3.2010 and 17.3.2010 but the answers are not forthcoming. I have also requested for the transcript of the proceedings before Justice Chaney that was made in my absence in an ambushed judgment on 4.11.2009 and a directions hearing on 16.2.2009 in VR87 of 2009 but they have not been acceded to.
o) The failure of any judicial officer or any party to the proceedings to answer any pertinent questions relating to the issues of the matter before it as an impartial tribunal tends towards the irrefutable conclusion that it is admitting to the truth of those allegations that is implicit in those questions aimed at producing transparency of proceedings.
In view of the above, I would like to Notify the real Board of the real regulator of the Legal Profession to interfere in good faith, to solve this longstanding matter so as to avoid the issue of the persecuting malice or he bad faith of the Pseudo Board from being denied in a court of law without full reason and explanations.
The LPCC is a Statutory authority empowered with a legal authority to investigate the wrong doings of the Pseudo Board and its refusal to respond to Justice Heenan’s Order is an indication that it is continuing to be in dereliction of its statutory duties.
The real Legal Practice Board through the help of the Attorney General its chairperson should therefore intervene in the legal proceedings in CIV 1019 of 2010 by setting aright the wrongs done by the LPCC to request the Supreme Court to review the decision of Justice Heenan by another Justice of the Supreme Court instead of allowing me to appeal it in CACV 41 of 2010, which will involve unnecessary resources.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
c.c.
The Legal Profession Complaints Committee Fax: 9461 2265
The Chief Executive Officer
The State Administrative Tribunal Ground Floor, 12 St Georges Terrace Perth
Postal address: GPO Box U1991 Perth 6845 Telephone: (08) 9219 3111 1300 306 017 Fax: (08) 9325 5099 Atten:
The Associate to the President of SAT: Ms. Toni Sherwood
The Associate to Deputy President of SAT: Ms. Alexandra Turner
The Principal Registrar
Mr. Keith Frederick Chapman; Supreme Court of WA Stirling Gardens, Barrack Street
PERTH WA 6000 Associate: Tel: 08 9421 5302 Fax: 08 92218350
Your Ref: CIV 1019 of 2010: Ex-parte Nicholas N Chin
Ombudsman Western Australia Fax: 08 9325 1107 Email: mail@ombudsman.wa.gov.au
Level 12 44 St Georges Terrace
PERTH WA 6000
The Hon Christian Porter MLA
Department of the Attorney General
Level 12, Westralia Square,
141 St Georges Terrace, PERTH 6000 GPO Box F317, PERTH 6841 Phone: (08) 9264 1600
Legal Practice Board of Western Australia
5th Floor, Kings Building
533 Hay Street PERTH WA 6000 Telephone: (08) 6211 3600 Facsimile: (08) 9325 2743
Email: general@lpbwa.com Atten: Ms. Miranda Breisch
Dear Sir
THE LEGAL PRACTTICE BOARD PERVERTED THE COURSE OF JUSTICE BY CONTACTING JUSTICE EM HEENAN ON 20.4.2010 IN MY EXPARTE APPLICATION IN CIV 1019 OF 2010
I refer to the above matter and would like to state as follows:
a) I was present at the proceedings before His Honour Justice Heenan at Court room 13.1 at the Level 13 of the Supreme Court of Perth at No.111, St. George’s Terrace, Perth WA on 21.4.2010 at 10.30 am.
b) During the course of this ex-parte application for certiorari Orders, the learned Justice Heenan made an about-turn of his previous decision and dismissed my application irrationally which is directly caused by the telephone call made by the Legal Practice Board to him on 20.4.2010.
c) The reason why I am stating that Justice Heenan made an about-turn in his decision stems from the fact that he on the 6.4.2010 issued an order that I serve all the relevant papers on the LPCC within 2 days and that the LPCC do respond to my ex-parte Application within 10 days which Order was not complied with by the LPCC by the latest date 17.4.2010.
d) It is illogical for Justice Heenan to issue an order which was not complied with by the LPCC and a subsequent telephone call by the Legal Practice Board had thereby compromised his judicial independence and had thereby stopped him from executing his duties as a judicial officer.
h) The same state of affairs exist with regard to the learned President of the State Administrative Tribunal in VR 87 of 2009 which caused an about-turn in his decision and changed his mind with regard to the due compliance of Orders already issued by him to the LPCC to respond to my Response for the malicious and improper persecution of me on the res judicata issues of facts and law in VR87 of 2009.
i) Judicial Officers are not usually so inconsistent as to issue Orders and then subsequently be found to be reneging on their decision for the due compliance of those Orders without any reasons or explanations being tendered by the other party; and disregarding me as an ex-parte applicant by not giving me any due notifications but causing the judicial officer to be less than independent.
j) It is a well-known law that judicial officers and any other party who interferes with the course of justice or who perverts the course of justice is committing a criminal offence and should be appropriately dealt with by citing him or them for contempt of court. It looks like some parties are immune from the proper exercise of jurisdiction of the court
k) I do not understand that the sole salient feature that run through the whole fabric of my case with the regulator of the legal profession has always been avoided by the Board and the judicial officers: namely, the existence of a Pseudo Board usurping the authority of the real Board to exercise an invalid authority to sanction me for no wrongs with a secret agenda to protect its own cronies who have been pillaging and plundering innocent members of the public with impunity.
l) As long as this salient issue is not been logically and legally determined by the contending parties, this issue remains a source of contention that can be taken up at any level of the legal system in Australia. I may have been to the High Court of Australia in P.36 of 2009 in my Special Application for Leave to Appeal which was dismissed on 10.3.2010 but that does not mean that I can no longer bring up this issue for determination again on that this salient issue can never be barred by the principle of res judicata. It is clear that Justice Chaney in VR 107 of 2008 avoid the determination of this issue. It is also clear that Justice Chaney can never get down into the arena of conflict by conspiring with the LPCC to persecute me for the further frivolous and vexatious remedy of professional misconduct upon issues of facts and law which is already res judicata.
m) The failure of the LPCC to comply with the Orders of Justice Heenan in CIV 1019 of 2010 means that the LPCC is continuing to harbour criminals and wrong doers who have been pillaging and plundering innocent members of the public but is keen to avoid the Supreme Court from finding out the truths and to help it to dispense fair justice to me.
n) I have asked His Honour Justice Chaney or the LPCC to help Justice to explain why he is taking the sides of the LPCC in VR87 of 2009 in my two letters dated 15.3.2010 and 17.3.2010 but the answers are not forthcoming. I have also requested for the transcript of the proceedings before Justice Chaney that was made in my absence in an ambushed judgment on 4.11.2009 and a directions hearing on 16.2.2009 in VR87 of 2009 but they have not been acceded to.
o) The failure of any judicial officer or any party to the proceedings to answer any pertinent questions relating to the issues of the matter before it as an impartial tribunal tends towards the irrefutable conclusion that it is admitting to the truth of those allegations that is implicit in those questions aimed at producing transparency of proceedings.
In view of the above, I would like to Notify the real Board of the real regulator of the Legal Profession to interfere in good faith, to solve this longstanding matter so as to avoid the issue of the persecuting malice or he bad faith of the Pseudo Board from being denied in a court of law without full reason and explanations.
The LPCC is a Statutory authority empowered with a legal authority to investigate the wrong doings of the Pseudo Board and its refusal to respond to Justice Heenan’s Order is an indication that it is continuing to be in dereliction of its statutory duties.
The real Legal Practice Board through the help of the Attorney General its chairperson should therefore intervene in the legal proceedings in CIV 1019 of 2010 by setting aright the wrongs done by the LPCC to request the Supreme Court to review the decision of Justice Heenan by another Justice of the Supreme Court instead of allowing me to appeal it in CACV 41 of 2010, which will involve unnecessary resources.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
c.c.
The Legal Profession Complaints Committee Fax: 9461 2265
The Chief Executive Officer
The State Administrative Tribunal Ground Floor, 12 St Georges Terrace Perth
Postal address: GPO Box U1991 Perth 6845 Telephone: (08) 9219 3111 1300 306 017 Fax: (08) 9325 5099 Atten:
The Associate to the President of SAT: Ms. Toni Sherwood
The Associate to Deputy President of SAT: Ms. Alexandra Turner
The Principal Registrar
Mr. Keith Frederick Chapman; Supreme Court of WA Stirling Gardens, Barrack Street
PERTH WA 6000 Associate: Tel: 08 9421 5302 Fax: 08 92218350
Your Ref: CIV 1019 of 2010: Ex-parte Nicholas N Chin
Ombudsman Western Australia Fax: 08 9325 1107 Email: mail@ombudsman.wa.gov.au
Level 12 44 St Georges Terrace
PERTH WA 6000
The Hon Christian Porter MLA
Department of the Attorney General
Level 12, Westralia Square,
141 St Georges Terrace, PERTH 6000 GPO Box F317, PERTH 6841 Phone: (08) 9264 1600
Friday, April 16, 2010
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS IN CIV1019 OF 2010 IN HEARING BEFORE JUSTICE HEENAN ON 21.4.2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CIV NO:1019 OF 2010
HELD AT PERTH
In the matter of an application for Certiorari Orders Nisi to review and quash the decision of the learned President of the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (SAT), the learned Justice Chaney in his res judicata point judgment delivered on 4.11.2009 and the stay of his consequent orders; the res judicata proceedings commenced by the Legal Profession Complaints Committee in VR 87 of 2009 on 30.6.2009 be STAYED pending the decision of this Application.
And
In the matter of an Application Under Order 67 r.5 of the Rules of Supreme Court, 1971 (WA) for Leave to re-file the Amended Papers of the Original Application that were considered and refused by the learned Martin CJ on 14.12.2009 in CIV 3068 of 2009 on grounds that the Notice of Originating Motion were incomprehensible, prolix and replete with derogatory hyperbole and does not appear to be justified by the facts identified in the Affidavit.
EX PARTE: NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of document: 17th April, 2010.
Date of filing: 17th April, 2010.
Filed on behalf of: The Ex parte Applicant
Prepared by:
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN Phone: 08 92757440;
387, Alexander Drive, DIANELLA Mobile: 0421642735
WA 6059 Emails: nnchin@msn.com;
nnchin09@tpg.com.au
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS FOR HEARING AT 10.30 AM ON WEDNESDAY 21.4.2010 AT COURT 13.1. SUPREME COURT PERTH, LEVEL 13, N0.11, ST GEORGES TERRACE, PERTH WA 6000 BEFORE JUSTICE HEENAN
1. 30.11.2009 Applicant filed CIV 3068 of 2009.
2. 4.12.2009 – CIV 3068 of 2009 was rejected by the Chief Registrar on grounds that is unlikely to succeed and not because it is frivolous or vexatious as provided for in Order 67 r.5 of the RSC.
3. 14.12.2009 CIV 3068 of 2009 re-lodged, pursuant to Order 67r.5 of the RSC -- dismissed by the Honourable Chief Justice Wayne Martin QC on the ground that the matter is pending decision by the High Court of Australia for Special Leave to Appeal in P36 of 2009.
4. 28.12.2009 CIV 3086 of 2009 Application for Certiorari Orders to review the Court of Appeal Decision in Chin v Hall re the error of facts pertaining to the falsification of court records by Mr. David Taylor with the collaboration of judicial officer the learned Registrar Powell as evidenced by his letter dated 11.6.2009 – dismissed by the Honourable Chief Justice, Wayne Martin Q.C on the ground that it already the subject of an Application for Special Leave to Appeal as P1 of 2010 in the High Court of Australia which is currently pending decision.
5. 19.12.2009 - Applicant filed re-amended CIV 3068 of 2009 known as CIV 1019 of 2010 with the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
6. 5.1.2010 – CIV 1019 of 2010 was rejected by the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
7. 6.1.2010 – File re-Amended CIV 1019 of 2010 with request to be heard by another Justice other than the Chief Justice on the ground of bias with two volumes of documents totalling 520 pages.
8. 20.1.2010 – Filed Minute of Proposed Orders in 6 pages in CIV 1019 of 2010.
9. 25.3.2010 – Filed Amended Minute of Proposed Orders in CIV 1019 of 2010 in 6 pages in the light of the dismissal by the High Court of Australia of P36 of 2009 made on 10.3.2010 – caused by the credibility of the trial judge being the learned President of SAT, Justice John Chaney, remaining unimpeached, in both VR 107 of 2008 and CACV 105 of 2008. The deficiency of Justice Chaney’s first judgment re-opens the undecided issues in this Application for Certiorari Orders nisi made for in CIV 1019 of 2010.
10. 25.3.2010 – Filed a 22 page Outline of Written Submissions in 3 copies for CIV 1019 of 20120 to be presented at the hearing before the Learned Justice Heenan on 6.4.2010.
11. 29.3.2010 – Applicant received a facsimile copy of the letter from Mr. Maurice Frederick Law regarding the falsity of the court records in CIV 1131 of 2006 that forms one of the subject matter of Justice Chaney’s error as regards the false concept affecting the Applicant’s propensity to make false allegations against fellow practitioners including Mr. David Taylor. This matter is the current subject of the appeal process in P1 of 2010.
12. 29.3.2010 – Applicant filed the Supplementary Affidavit of 12 pages annexing 123 pages of evidentiary materials in CIV 1019 of 2010 to further embellish and support his case for his Application for Certiorari Orders nisi against the First and Second Judgments of Justice Chaney.
13. 2.4.2010 – Applicant filed in CIV 1019 of 2010 the Amended List of Authorities bearing asterisked cases which will be elaborated in the oral presentation before Justice Heenan.
14. 6.4.2010 – Hearing before Justice Heenan at Supreme Court Perth in court room No.14, Level 14, No.111, St. George’s Terrace, Perth WA 6000 whence an Order was issued by Justice Heenan for the Applicant to serve all relevant documents on the Legal Profession Complaints Committee within 2 days, the LPCC to respond within 10 days and the Application in CIV 1019 of 2010 to be withheld for 14 days pending the response of the LPCC.
15. 7.4.2010 – Applicant complied with the Orders of Justice Heenan in CIV 1019 of 2010 dated 6.4.2010 to serve all relevant papers as evidenced by the facsimile cover letter of Appeal to the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court marked for the attention of the Associate of Justice Heenan, Mr. Stephen Sommerville dated 7.4.2010. This letter is also copied to the Chief Executive Officer of SAT and to the LPCC.
16. 7.4.2010 – Applicant sent a facsimile letter to the Chief Executive of SAT, copied to the LPCC and the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court requesting for the transcript of proceedings of Justice Chaney given for the ambushed decision in VR 87 of 2009 on 4.11.2009 and the proceedings conducted in the absence of the Applicant on 16.2.2010. To date, the requested transcripts have not been provided for by SAT to the Applicant. (the request for the 4.11.2009 transcript was made by a telephone request through one Mary of SAT on 8.4.2010 at 9.02 am).
17. 12.4.2010- SAT responded to Applicant by re-listing the directions hearing of the res judicata proceedings in VR 87 of 2009 to be re-scheduled to the 27.4.2010 at 10.30 am.
18. 12.4.2010 – Mr. Maurice Frederick Law sent me a copy of the response he received from the LPCC as a result of his letter to the LPCC dated 29.3.2010.
19. 13.4.2010 – I responded to paragraph 2.2. of that LPCC letter to Mr. Law by way of email explaining the intricacies of the factual circumstances and the related law with regard to the filing and processing of the filing of a Writ of Summons in CIV 1131 of 2006 and the methods of payments of court fees and how the law was being circumvented by the learned Registrar Powell acting in collaboration with Mr. David Taylor.
20. 14.4.2010 – Applicant received an email that the resumed hearing in CIV 1019 of 2010 will be heard on Wednesday 21.4.2010 at 10.30 am at Supreme Court Perth court room 13.1. Level 13, No.111, St. George’s Terrace, Perth WA 6000 when an oral exposition of the asterisked case law in the New List of Authorities will be expected to be made by the Applicant before Justice Heenan.
NICHOLAS N CHIN – SOLICITOR LITIGANT IN PERSON
HELD AT PERTH
In the matter of an application for Certiorari Orders Nisi to review and quash the decision of the learned President of the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (SAT), the learned Justice Chaney in his res judicata point judgment delivered on 4.11.2009 and the stay of his consequent orders; the res judicata proceedings commenced by the Legal Profession Complaints Committee in VR 87 of 2009 on 30.6.2009 be STAYED pending the decision of this Application.
And
In the matter of an Application Under Order 67 r.5 of the Rules of Supreme Court, 1971 (WA) for Leave to re-file the Amended Papers of the Original Application that were considered and refused by the learned Martin CJ on 14.12.2009 in CIV 3068 of 2009 on grounds that the Notice of Originating Motion were incomprehensible, prolix and replete with derogatory hyperbole and does not appear to be justified by the facts identified in the Affidavit.
EX PARTE: NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of document: 17th April, 2010.
Date of filing: 17th April, 2010.
Filed on behalf of: The Ex parte Applicant
Prepared by:
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN Phone: 08 92757440;
387, Alexander Drive, DIANELLA Mobile: 0421642735
WA 6059 Emails: nnchin@msn.com;
nnchin09@tpg.com.au
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS FOR HEARING AT 10.30 AM ON WEDNESDAY 21.4.2010 AT COURT 13.1. SUPREME COURT PERTH, LEVEL 13, N0.11, ST GEORGES TERRACE, PERTH WA 6000 BEFORE JUSTICE HEENAN
1. 30.11.2009 Applicant filed CIV 3068 of 2009.
2. 4.12.2009 – CIV 3068 of 2009 was rejected by the Chief Registrar on grounds that is unlikely to succeed and not because it is frivolous or vexatious as provided for in Order 67 r.5 of the RSC.
3. 14.12.2009 CIV 3068 of 2009 re-lodged, pursuant to Order 67r.5 of the RSC -- dismissed by the Honourable Chief Justice Wayne Martin QC on the ground that the matter is pending decision by the High Court of Australia for Special Leave to Appeal in P36 of 2009.
4. 28.12.2009 CIV 3086 of 2009 Application for Certiorari Orders to review the Court of Appeal Decision in Chin v Hall re the error of facts pertaining to the falsification of court records by Mr. David Taylor with the collaboration of judicial officer the learned Registrar Powell as evidenced by his letter dated 11.6.2009 – dismissed by the Honourable Chief Justice, Wayne Martin Q.C on the ground that it already the subject of an Application for Special Leave to Appeal as P1 of 2010 in the High Court of Australia which is currently pending decision.
5. 19.12.2009 - Applicant filed re-amended CIV 3068 of 2009 known as CIV 1019 of 2010 with the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
6. 5.1.2010 – CIV 1019 of 2010 was rejected by the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
7. 6.1.2010 – File re-Amended CIV 1019 of 2010 with request to be heard by another Justice other than the Chief Justice on the ground of bias with two volumes of documents totalling 520 pages.
8. 20.1.2010 – Filed Minute of Proposed Orders in 6 pages in CIV 1019 of 2010.
9. 25.3.2010 – Filed Amended Minute of Proposed Orders in CIV 1019 of 2010 in 6 pages in the light of the dismissal by the High Court of Australia of P36 of 2009 made on 10.3.2010 – caused by the credibility of the trial judge being the learned President of SAT, Justice John Chaney, remaining unimpeached, in both VR 107 of 2008 and CACV 105 of 2008. The deficiency of Justice Chaney’s first judgment re-opens the undecided issues in this Application for Certiorari Orders nisi made for in CIV 1019 of 2010.
10. 25.3.2010 – Filed a 22 page Outline of Written Submissions in 3 copies for CIV 1019 of 20120 to be presented at the hearing before the Learned Justice Heenan on 6.4.2010.
11. 29.3.2010 – Applicant received a facsimile copy of the letter from Mr. Maurice Frederick Law regarding the falsity of the court records in CIV 1131 of 2006 that forms one of the subject matter of Justice Chaney’s error as regards the false concept affecting the Applicant’s propensity to make false allegations against fellow practitioners including Mr. David Taylor. This matter is the current subject of the appeal process in P1 of 2010.
12. 29.3.2010 – Applicant filed the Supplementary Affidavit of 12 pages annexing 123 pages of evidentiary materials in CIV 1019 of 2010 to further embellish and support his case for his Application for Certiorari Orders nisi against the First and Second Judgments of Justice Chaney.
13. 2.4.2010 – Applicant filed in CIV 1019 of 2010 the Amended List of Authorities bearing asterisked cases which will be elaborated in the oral presentation before Justice Heenan.
14. 6.4.2010 – Hearing before Justice Heenan at Supreme Court Perth in court room No.14, Level 14, No.111, St. George’s Terrace, Perth WA 6000 whence an Order was issued by Justice Heenan for the Applicant to serve all relevant documents on the Legal Profession Complaints Committee within 2 days, the LPCC to respond within 10 days and the Application in CIV 1019 of 2010 to be withheld for 14 days pending the response of the LPCC.
15. 7.4.2010 – Applicant complied with the Orders of Justice Heenan in CIV 1019 of 2010 dated 6.4.2010 to serve all relevant papers as evidenced by the facsimile cover letter of Appeal to the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court marked for the attention of the Associate of Justice Heenan, Mr. Stephen Sommerville dated 7.4.2010. This letter is also copied to the Chief Executive Officer of SAT and to the LPCC.
16. 7.4.2010 – Applicant sent a facsimile letter to the Chief Executive of SAT, copied to the LPCC and the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court requesting for the transcript of proceedings of Justice Chaney given for the ambushed decision in VR 87 of 2009 on 4.11.2009 and the proceedings conducted in the absence of the Applicant on 16.2.2010. To date, the requested transcripts have not been provided for by SAT to the Applicant. (the request for the 4.11.2009 transcript was made by a telephone request through one Mary of SAT on 8.4.2010 at 9.02 am).
17. 12.4.2010- SAT responded to Applicant by re-listing the directions hearing of the res judicata proceedings in VR 87 of 2009 to be re-scheduled to the 27.4.2010 at 10.30 am.
18. 12.4.2010 – Mr. Maurice Frederick Law sent me a copy of the response he received from the LPCC as a result of his letter to the LPCC dated 29.3.2010.
19. 13.4.2010 – I responded to paragraph 2.2. of that LPCC letter to Mr. Law by way of email explaining the intricacies of the factual circumstances and the related law with regard to the filing and processing of the filing of a Writ of Summons in CIV 1131 of 2006 and the methods of payments of court fees and how the law was being circumvented by the learned Registrar Powell acting in collaboration with Mr. David Taylor.
20. 14.4.2010 – Applicant received an email that the resumed hearing in CIV 1019 of 2010 will be heard on Wednesday 21.4.2010 at 10.30 am at Supreme Court Perth court room 13.1. Level 13, No.111, St. George’s Terrace, Perth WA 6000 when an oral exposition of the asterisked case law in the New List of Authorities will be expected to be made by the Applicant before Justice Heenan.
NICHOLAS N CHIN – SOLICITOR LITIGANT IN PERSON
Thursday, April 15, 2010
TRANSCRIPT OF CIV1019 OF 2010 BEFORE JUSTICE HEENAN ON 6.4.2010 RE: CERTIRORARI ORDERS NISI AGAINST LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD OF WA
Copyright in this document is reserved to the State of Western Australia. Reproduction of this document (or part thereof, in any format) except with the prior written consent of the attorney-general is prohibited. Please note that under section 43 of the Copyright Act 1968 copyright is not infringed by anything reproduced for the purposes of a judicial proceeding or of a report of a judicial proceeding.
THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CIV: 1019 of 2010
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI ORDERS NISI TO REVIEW AND QUASH THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED PRESIDENT JUSTICE CHANEY OF THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (SAT), IN BOTH HIS JUDGMENTS IN VR 107 OF 2008 and VR 87 OF 2009; THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT IMPINGING ON THE PRESIDENT'S CREDIBILITY AND HIS LACK OF INDEPENDENCE AS A JUDGE WARRANTS A REVIEW OF THE FORMER DECISION AND A STRIKING OFF OF THE LATTER ACTION AS AN ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF THE COURT
and
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 67 RULE 5 OF THE RSC, 1971 (WA) FOR LEAVE TO RE-FILE THE AMENDED PAPERS OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION THAT WERE ORIGINALLY RIGHTLY CONSIDERED AND RIGHTLY REFUSED BY THE LEARNED MARTIN CJ ON 14.12.2009 IN CIV 3068 OF 2009 ON GROUNDS THAT THE NOTICE OF ORIGINATING MOTION WERE THEN FOUND TO BE "INCOMPREHENSIBLE, PROLIX AND REPLETE WITH DEROGATORY HYPERBOLE AND DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE JUSTIFIED BY THE FACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE AFFIDAVIT" BUT IT IS NOW NO LONGER DEEMED TO BE SO
ex parte
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
6/4/10 1
(s&c)
HEENAN J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT PERTH ON TUESDAY, 6 APRIL 2010, AT 10.30 AM
The applicant appeared in person.
6/4/10 2
THE ASSOCIATE: In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, CIV 1019 of 2010, Chin.
HEENAN J: Yes, Mr Chin?
CHIN, MR: Your Honour, may I humbly beg your Honour to grant me - this Honourable court to grant me the indulgence just in case I have said something that might seem not very proper or I have hurt or injured anyone who is a judicial officer. Secondly, your Honour, I wish also to ask for the grant of indulgence because my affidavit - in the course of preparation of my affidavit in this matter I might have repeated some facts or law which was caused by my being in a state of shock and trauma, your Honour.
HEENAN J: Well, I will take those matters into consideration, Mr Chin.
CHIN, MR: Thank you, your Honour. Before I begin with my oral presentation of the cases that I've put into my list of authorities, I would like to give a preview of what has transpired in this case.
HEENAN J: Well, Mr Chin, it seems that there has been a long history to the matters that you are concerned about.
CHIN, MR: Yes, your Honour.
HEENAN J: And am I right in concluding that there has been a series of applications before the State Administrative Tribunal?
CHIN, MR: Yes, your Honour.
HEENAN J: And before that, the Legal Practice Board?
CHIN, MR: Yes, your Honour.
HEENAN J: And after the State Administrative Tribunal, proceedings in this court?
CHIN, MR: In the Court of Appeal, your Honour, not in this court.
HEENAN J: Was that an appeal from the decision of - - -
CHIN, MR: From Chaney J's decision.
HEENAN J: Yes.
CHIN, MR: And then there were two appeals. One was from Judge Eckert's decision. That was aborted because of a consent judgment.
HEENAN J: Well, just let me get this right. Legal Practice Board is where it all started?
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 3
CHIN, MR: Yes. It all started with the Professional Affairs Committee that received a complaint from Mr Pino Monaco, who was a former president of the Law Society of WA, and Mr Pino Monaco improperly influenced the PAC to instigate an improper investigation.
HEENAN J: Well, at any event there was a complaint to the Legal Practice Committee
CHIN, MR: Yes, and instead of the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee, the complaint was made to the Professional Affairs Committee where - - -
HEENAN J: And then they initiated proceedings in the State Administrative Tribunal.
CHIN, MR: And they initiated the proceedings and they decided to impose conditions on me, and I made an application against that decision to impose conditions on me for the nebulose deficiency of my professional knowledge.
HEENAN J: And was that also heard in the State Administrative Tribunal?
CHIN, MR: It was heard before Judge Eckert in VR 137 of 2006 and was decided on 12 September 2006. That becomes the subject of my appeal in CACV 43 of 2007.
HEENAN J: So that was an appeal to?
CHIN, MR: The Court of Appeal.
HEENAN J: Well, how did it get before Judge Chaney in the State Administrative Tribunal?
CHIN, MR: When the appeal CACV 43 was aborted on the grounds of the existence of the pseudo full board, the Legal Practice Board decided to enter into a consent judgment with me, and I asked for the terms of the settlement, the consent judgment, to be included but I was defrauded of the term of my consent judgment, and the Legal Practice Board through another pseudo board started again an inquiry panel. That inquiry panel again did not have the majority consent - - -
HEENAN J: Well, just tell me what happened. Did they make some decision adverse to you?
CHIN, MR: They made the decision to impose - to re‑impose the condition on me. Then the only thing that they wanted to do is to unreasonably curb my independent legal practice.
HEENAN J: Well, let me see if I have got this correct. There were proceedings before the Legal Practice Board
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 4
before her Honour Judge Eckert - I'm sorry, proceedings before the State Administrative Tribunal instituted by the Legal Practice Board and heard by her Honour Judge Eckert.
CHIN, MR: Instituted by me, your Honour, please.
HEENAN J: And from Judge Eckert's decision, there was an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Is that right?
CHIN, MR: Yes, your Honour.
HEENAN J: And what happened with that appeal?
CHIN, MR: We achieved a consent judgment through his Honour Steytler J on 26 September 2007.
HEENAN J: And what did that judgment order?
CHIN, MR: That the respective parties come to a settlement. The Legal Practice Board knew that it was in a quandary.
HEENAN J: Well, in any event the matter went back to the Legal Practice Board. Is that right?
CHIN, MR: Yes, the matter - after the consent judgment was achieved, the conditions of my settlement - I want to be able to have my independent practice again - was not granted to me because another pseudo board came into existence and it became an inquiry panel. The inquiry panel was established under section 41 of the former LP Act and that - - -
HEENAN J: What were they inquiring into?
CHIN, MR: They wanted to inquire into some nebulose deficiency of my professional knowledge, with no prospect of ever - - -
HEENAN J: Did that hearing go to a conclusion?
CHIN, MR: Did that hearing - sir?
HEENAN J: Proceed towards a conclusion.
CHIN, MR: That hearing proceeded towards a conclusion but that hearing was not able to validate its authority. That inquiry panel did not have the authority.
HEENAN J: Well, that's your submission.
CHIN, MR: It is an admission from the Legal Practice Board, your Honour, on two occasions.
HEENAN J: Well, what happened as a result of that?
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 5
CHIN, MR: The result is I made an application to review the decision of the inquiry panel to his Honour Chaney J. It was before the former president, his Honour Barker J, but Chaney J came into the process as the vice‑president and then Chaney J heard it through, but I plead with Chaney J that I want an objective decision.
HEENAN J: And what happened?
CHIN, MR: And Chaney J still make the decision that a condition be imposed on my practice certificate so that I cannot practise independently, although he found that I was not guilty of any professional misconduct, and his rationale is that section 39 and section 40 can be divested from each other, that is - - -
HEENAN J: Well, the decision was that certain restrictions on your right to practice should remain. Is that it?
CHIN, MR: Yes, your Honour.
HEENAN J: So you appealed from that to the Court of Appeal?
CHIN, MR: I appealed from that to the Court of Appeal in CACV 105 of 2008.
HEENAN J: So that's the second appeal to the Court of Appeal?
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: And what happened?
CHIN, MR: The Court of Appeal, through his Honour Pullin J, first tell me to put in my grounds of decision everything which Chaney J - - -
HEENAN J: Yes, but has the appeal been heard?
CHIN, MR: The appeal has been heard and leave has not been granted to appeal, your Honour, on the ground that it is unlikely to succeed.
HEENAN J: So you couldn't take that any further?
CHIN, MR: I took it to the High Court.
HEENAN J: And?
CHIN, MR: The High Court decided on 10 March 2010 to dismiss my application on the ground that the credibility of Chaney J still stands, and my contention - - -
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 6
HEENAN J: So you have challenged this decision of Chaney J by an application for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal and you have been refused leave, and from that refusal you have applied to the High Court of Australia for special leave to appeal and you have been refused special leave to appeal?
CHIN, MR: Yes, your Honour, but I see - I can see that the High Court decision is good because the High Court decision dismiss it on the ground of the credibility - -
HEENAN J: Well, what are these proceedings about?
CHIN, MR: This proceeding, your Honour, has got a two‑pronged objective. (1) - - -
HEENAN J: Don't tell me what the objective is. Tell me what it is that you want to obtain. What kind of orders do you want?
CHIN, MR: I want to obtain a certiorari order to be made nisi - a certiorari order nisi to be made absolute in terms of Chaney J's res judicata point decision that was delivered on 4 November 2009, which I term as an ambush decision.
HEENAN J: But is this not part of the decision which Chaney J made confirming the imposition of conditions which you took to the Court of Appeal and to the High Court?
CHIN, MR: No. On 30 June - - -
HEENAN J: Why isn't it?
CHIN, MR: On 30 June 2009 the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee - the Legal Profession Complaints Committee, being emboldened by my unsuccessful application for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal, started to commence a proceeding called VR 87 of 2009. That is what I call res judicata proceedings because - - -
HEENAN J: Is this a third set of proceedings?
CHIN, MR: Yes, it is, your Honour.
HEENAN J: You have been telling me about proceedings in the Legal Practice Board which led to a decision of her Honour Judge Eckert.
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: And then you have been telling me about subsequent proceedings in the Legal Practice Board which led to a decision of his Honour Chaney J.
CHIN, MR: Yes.
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 7
HEENAN J: Now, is this a third set of proceedings?
CHIN, MR: This is a third set of proceedings.
HEENAN J: And what are they?
CHIN, MR: It is VR 87 of 2009. It is based on the same facts and law that were already decided and were already litigated - - -
HEENAN J: But what are they trying to - what orders are they wanting?
CHIN, MR: They want professional misconduct this time in the res judicata proceedings. They have forgotten - or rather they could not find the reason for professional misconduct, and they are saying, "We begin a new proceeding against you on the same facts and law - on the same issues of facts and law, and we are going to get you for professional misconduct."
HEENAN J: And are the papers relating to that application somewhere here in your affidavit?
CHIN, MR: Yes. The papers that I have made are - is being amended, your Honour. I would like to go through - - -
HEENAN J: No, just a moment. I want to see, if I can, what are the most recent proceedings in the Legal Practice Board. Are they referred to in these papers of yours? There's such a large volume of papers, it's difficult to work out what has been happening.
CHIN, MR: Yes, your Honour. The latest is the insistence and the continuance of the Legal Profession Complaints Committee to further prosecute me on professional misconduct, which Chaney J is taking an active part to be involved.
HEENAN J: Well, I have just looked at your supplementary affidavit of 28 March.
CHIN, MR: Yes, your Honour.
HEENAN J: And at page 114 there's a letter to you from the Legal Profession Complaints Committee saying that there's a trial listed on 18, 19 and 20 May.
CHIN, MR: That is correct, your Honour.
HEENAN J: What trial is that?
CHIN, MR: The trial is the further prosecution for professional misconduct, which I term as the res judicata proceedings.
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 8
HEENAN J: Yes, but what I'm asking you is to tell me what exactly are the allegations which are made by the Legal Practice Board.
CHIN, MR: Those allegations are contained in the two books that I put in in CIV 1019.
HEENAN J: And there has also been a decision by Martin CJ shortly before Christmas.
CHIN, MR: Yes. I want to say that there has been some misunderstanding between me and the chief justice, and I'm not blaming the chief justice because at that time I was in a state of shock and trauma.
HEENAN J: Well, never mind about all that. I just want to find out what the current proceedings are.
CHIN, MR: The current proceedings are Chaney J has decided that the matter - what I term as the malicious and res judicata proceedings - that has been instituted by the LPCC on 30 June 2009 is to be continued and to be heard on 18 May 2010.
HEENAN J: So where do I find the allegations by the Legal Practice Complaints Committee of June 2009? Are they in these papers?
CHIN, MR: Yes, they are.
HEENAN J: Can you tell me where?
CHIN, MR: Page 306 to 388, your Honour.
HEENAN J: Of what?
CHIN, MR: Of the blue - of the two volumes of this book, beginning with 306.
HEENAN J: 306, did you say?
CHIN, MR: 306, your Honour.
HEENAN J: Well, that seems to me to be a response from you.
CHIN, MR: That's my response, but prior to that is the - at page 274, your Honour, is the application made by the Legal Profession Complaints Committee that is dated 30 June 2009.
HEENAN J: Page 274?
CHIN, MR: Yes, your Honour.
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 9
HEENAN J: Well, just a moment, please. Well, there are a whole series of allegations against you.
CHIN, MR: Yes, your Honour. All those - - -
HEENAN J: Are you still practising?
CHIN, MR: I cannot practise, your Honour, because I am being imposed a condition not to have independent practice and I cannot get any employment to be supervised by any lawyer in Western Australia, neither in another state, because everyone is afraid of the repercussion from the regulator of the legal profession. I'm being black‑marked because some erring members of the legal profession have been pillaging, plundering and robbing innocent members of the public, and I have proven that it has happened and I have got decisions that have been made against those people.
HEENAN J: Well, Mr Chin, I now have this application by the Legal Practice Complaints Committee which is to be heard in the State Administrative Tribunal in May. Now, what has happened since then? You have put in an answer.
CHIN, MR: Yes. I have asked for the res judicata proceedings in the State Administrative Tribunal to be aborted because I have made this application for certiorari orders to have - - -
HEENAN J: Just a moment. Why can't you go to the Legal Practice Board and make the defence that - - -
CHIN, MR: Your Honour - your Honour, I answer that, please.
HEENAN J: Well, just a moment. And raise any defence that you want to. I notice at page 421 that Judge Chaney on 22 September last year ordered that the question of whether the Legal Profession Complaints Committee is barred from bringing the present proceedings by reason of res judicata is to be determined on the papers and that that was adjourned further. Now, has that been determined?
CHIN, MR: There was a res judicata point judgment that was determined on 4 November.
HEENAN J: 4 November.
CHIN, MR: And that decision, your Honour, was made in my absence and I was ambushed by that decision - - -
HEENAN J: Well, it was - - -
CHIN, MR: - - - because, your Honour - - -
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 10
HEENAN J: Just a moment. The order of Chaney J on 22 September was that it was to be decided on the papers.
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: And here at page 428 appears to be the decision.
CHIN, MR: And he arranged for it to be heard on 10 November, but without informing me, he heard it in my absence on 4 November and made his decision on that day, which I did not have an opportunity to object to until 10 November when I was given such opportunity and I told him that I would appeal that decision. That is why I say that is an ambush decision, your Honour, and there are correspondence which record the fact that Chaney J has gone down and descended into the arena of conflict and was blinded by the dust of conflict.
HEENAN J: Well, you could appeal from the decision of Chaney J on this point to the Court of Appeal. Either you could apply for leave to appeal now or you could appeal from any eventual decision in the case.
CHIN, MR: My purpose, your Honour, in making an application for certiorari orders is the best solution for me because a single justice can have the matter reviewed. It is not an appeal, it is a review, and it is a prerogative order that entitles me - - -
HEENAN J: Yes. Well, one of the reasons why the court might refuse to order certiorari is that your rights are adequately protected by other rights of appeal.
CHIN, MR: My rights is not adequately protected by the Court of Appeal decision so far because the certiorari order that I'm asking is based on very cogent grounds.
HEENAN J: Very?
CHIN, MR: On very cogent grounds, your Honour.
HEENAN J: Cogent, yes.
CHIN, MR: Ground number 1 is that Chaney J made two decisions. The first decision
HEENAN J: Well, Mr Chin, it's very unusual for a court to grant a prerogative order by a certiorari or prohibition when there are proceedings committed in a court of competent jurisdiction that are pending and where there are rights of appeal.
CHIN, MR: Your Honour, there is no longer any proceedings pending. The Court of Appeal has dismissed my application - - -
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 11
HEENAN J: No, no. The proceedings before the State Administrative Tribunal are pending.
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: And they're going to trial in May.
CHIN, MR: Your Honour, I give you very cogent reason why the proceedings in the State Administrative Tribunal cannot be proceeded with.
HEENAN J: Well, Mr Chin, I - - -
CHIN, MR: Sir, can I please - can I please - - -
HEENAN J: Just a moment. I find it difficult to get a reliable account of all that has happened. Is there some reason why you have not served these papers on the Legal Practice Board or Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee?
CHIN, MR: All these papers are already in their purview, except for the - - -
HEENAN J: I'm sorry, I didn't quite hear.
CHIN, MR: Are already in their purview, your Honour.
HEENAN J: Already in the?
CHIN, MR: I have only one paper - - -
HEENAN J: I'm sorry, I still didn't catch what you said.
CHIN, MR: All those papers that I serve you are already with the Legal Practice Board. There's only - - -
HEENAN J: What, this application?
CHIN, MR: There's only this application that is not with the board, but once you have gone - we have gone through it, then when you order it, I will serve it. Your Honour, the State Administrative Tribunal proceedings, called VR 87 of 2009, is without jurisdiction. It is without jurisdiction because Henderson v Henderson - that is the law which says that you cannot - the Legal Practice Board cannot have a further remedy.
HEENAN J: Chaney J has decided against you on that ground.
CHIN, MR: Say that again, your Honour.
HEENAN J: Chaney J decided against you on that point.
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 12
CHIN, MR: That point was not included at that point of time, and I think Chaney J is now convinced that he has got no right to continue with the proceedings.
HEENAN J: Mr Chin, I am very reluctant to deal with this matter in the absence of submissions from the Legal Practice Complaints Committee.
CHIN, MR: Yes, your Honour.
HEENAN J: I am inclined to think that the proper course would be to adjourn this morning's application and order you to file a copy of all these papers on the Legal Complaints Committee and give them an opportunity to make submissions and then, if you want to, to hear it afresh when they have an opportunity to make countervailing submissions. Do you understand?
CHIN, MR: I would agree to that, your Honour, but before that happens, your Honour, please let me explain my point very clearly.
HEENAN J: Well, I think I understand your point. Your point is that for reasons which are long and complicated you were deprived of the proper opportunity to make submissions in relation to your res judicata point and the decision on that res judicata point, dismissing it, shouldn't be allowed to stand.
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: Isn't that what you want to say?
CHIN, MR: Yes. The law on res judicata says that - - -
HEENAN J: Yes, I think I understand what the law says, but your point is that you shouldn't have to go through this hearing on the Legal Practice Board because you've got a res judicata point.
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: And although the State Administrative Tribunal, by the decision of Chaney J, decided against you on the res judicata point, that decision shouldn't be allowed to stand because you say that for various reasons it was reached wrongly and without you being given a sufficient opportunity to contest it.
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: And consequently you want that decision set aside and you want the proceedings before the State Administrative Tribunal to be quashed.
CHIN, MR: Yes. Your Honour - - -
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 13
HEENAN J: Am I right in understanding that?
CHIN, MR: Yes, but what I'm trying - - -
HEENAN J: Well, I can understand that, Mr Chin, but the point is that all this has had a very long history and the proceedings are advanced. A lot of judicial officers have, rightly or wrongly, concluded that your case is not strong enough to justify intervention, and before I would make an order which would have the effect of holding up all those proceedings, I think I should hear the other side of the story from the Legal Practice Complaints Committee. It's only fair that the other side of the story should be heard.
CHIN, MR: Yes. Your Honour, the writ for certiorari orders does not require the other side - - -
HEENAN J: I know it doesn't require it to be made on notice, but at any time if the court thinks that it is desirable to be made on notice, it can be ordered to be made on notice.
CHIN, MR: Your Honour, I'm ready to comply with the order but I just want the court to understand clearly that the complaints committee has got no right for further remedy of professional misconduct.
HEENAN J: Well, that's the point that has to be decided.
CHIN, MR: That is a point that is clearly in the law, and then all those things -
HEENAN J: Mr Chin, you say it's clearly in the law but there is a - - -
CHIN, MR: Exception to it.
HEENAN J: There is a considered decision of the State Administrative Tribunal by his Honour Chaney J which has dismissed that application. You say that it's wrong, but I should give it at least some credit and certainly enough credit to require you to give the Legal Complaints Committee an opportunity to be heard, because if Chaney J's decision is correct, and one starts off by assuming that such decisions are correct, then you would not be entitled to this relief.
CHIN, MR: Yes, your Honour. Chaney J has a change of mind, I believe, after I forward to him my submission on the case of Henderson v Henderson, which relates to the further remedy.
HEENAN J: Well, Mr Chin, I don't need to hear you go into all this now because the more you tell me about this, the more I feel it is necessary to give the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee an opportunity to be heard. I think
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 14
what I should do is adjourn these proceedings for 14 days and order that you serve a copy of all the papers upon the authorised officer of the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee and give the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee an opportunity to file any affidavit or affidavits in opposition to the application and to file written submissions before the next hearing.
CHIN, MR: Yes, your Honour, I agree to that, but just one point I want to raise is that when the matter was - - -
HEENAN J: Well, why is it necessary to raise any other points?
CHIN, MR: Your Honour, when the matter was heard before Chaney J, Chaney J does not require the opposing counsel to make any submission, and as a result Chaney J was misled by the omission of the opposing counsel.
HEENAN J: Well, I have already indicated to you that I propose to order that not only should the papers be served on the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee but that it should file any affidavit or affidavits relating to the matter within the next - - -
CHIN, MR: 14 days.
HEENAN J: - - - 14 days and serve copies upon you, and also to file written submissions, so you will have an opportunity to see them.
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: And they can be considered when the matter comes on again in 14 days' time. If for any reason there is insufficient time for all that to be done within the 14 days, well, then anybody can ask for an extension of time.
CHIN, MR: Okay, your Honour, I agree to that.
HEENAN J: All right. Well, Mr Chin, the orders will be that the application is adjourned for 14 days, secondly, that you shall serve copies of all the papers which are presently before me upon the authorised officer of the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee within two days - can you do it within two days?
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: Within two days. Next, there will be an order for the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee, if it chooses to do so, to enter an appearance, to file any affidavit or affidavits in opposition to the application and to file written submissions within 10 days of the date of service.
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 15
CHIN, MR: Thank you, your Honour.
HEENAN J: And there will be liberty to apply generally and for an extension of any of the time limits imposed. Otherwise the matter will come on for hearing on notice on Tuesday fortnight.
CHIN, MR: Yes. Just one last point, your Honour. The last point is that my application for certiorari orders is for the scrapping of Chaney J's first judgment on the ground that his reasons for decision is deficient because Chaney J refused to touch on the live issue. The live issue is that I have always been confronted not with the real authority of the Legal Practice Board but with a pseudo board and that was assumed by any four members, and they have admitted on two occasions through my barrister that they do not have the real authority of the regulator of the legal profession either through section 10 and section 11 pertaining to the delegation of authorities under the former LP Act and through regulations 15 and 17 of the Legal Practice Board rules.
HEENAN J: Well, that's something that I can ask counsel for the Legal Practice Complaints Committee about if and when he appears.
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: All right. Well, those will be the orders and the court will adjourn.
AT 11.07 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED ACCORDINGLY
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 16
THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CIV: 1019 of 2010
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI ORDERS NISI TO REVIEW AND QUASH THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED PRESIDENT JUSTICE CHANEY OF THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (SAT), IN BOTH HIS JUDGMENTS IN VR 107 OF 2008 and VR 87 OF 2009; THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT IMPINGING ON THE PRESIDENT'S CREDIBILITY AND HIS LACK OF INDEPENDENCE AS A JUDGE WARRANTS A REVIEW OF THE FORMER DECISION AND A STRIKING OFF OF THE LATTER ACTION AS AN ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF THE COURT
and
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 67 RULE 5 OF THE RSC, 1971 (WA) FOR LEAVE TO RE-FILE THE AMENDED PAPERS OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION THAT WERE ORIGINALLY RIGHTLY CONSIDERED AND RIGHTLY REFUSED BY THE LEARNED MARTIN CJ ON 14.12.2009 IN CIV 3068 OF 2009 ON GROUNDS THAT THE NOTICE OF ORIGINATING MOTION WERE THEN FOUND TO BE "INCOMPREHENSIBLE, PROLIX AND REPLETE WITH DEROGATORY HYPERBOLE AND DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE JUSTIFIED BY THE FACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE AFFIDAVIT" BUT IT IS NOW NO LONGER DEEMED TO BE SO
ex parte
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
6/4/10 1
(s&c)
HEENAN J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT PERTH ON TUESDAY, 6 APRIL 2010, AT 10.30 AM
The applicant appeared in person.
6/4/10 2
THE ASSOCIATE: In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, CIV 1019 of 2010, Chin.
HEENAN J: Yes, Mr Chin?
CHIN, MR: Your Honour, may I humbly beg your Honour to grant me - this Honourable court to grant me the indulgence just in case I have said something that might seem not very proper or I have hurt or injured anyone who is a judicial officer. Secondly, your Honour, I wish also to ask for the grant of indulgence because my affidavit - in the course of preparation of my affidavit in this matter I might have repeated some facts or law which was caused by my being in a state of shock and trauma, your Honour.
HEENAN J: Well, I will take those matters into consideration, Mr Chin.
CHIN, MR: Thank you, your Honour. Before I begin with my oral presentation of the cases that I've put into my list of authorities, I would like to give a preview of what has transpired in this case.
HEENAN J: Well, Mr Chin, it seems that there has been a long history to the matters that you are concerned about.
CHIN, MR: Yes, your Honour.
HEENAN J: And am I right in concluding that there has been a series of applications before the State Administrative Tribunal?
CHIN, MR: Yes, your Honour.
HEENAN J: And before that, the Legal Practice Board?
CHIN, MR: Yes, your Honour.
HEENAN J: And after the State Administrative Tribunal, proceedings in this court?
CHIN, MR: In the Court of Appeal, your Honour, not in this court.
HEENAN J: Was that an appeal from the decision of - - -
CHIN, MR: From Chaney J's decision.
HEENAN J: Yes.
CHIN, MR: And then there were two appeals. One was from Judge Eckert's decision. That was aborted because of a consent judgment.
HEENAN J: Well, just let me get this right. Legal Practice Board is where it all started?
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 3
CHIN, MR: Yes. It all started with the Professional Affairs Committee that received a complaint from Mr Pino Monaco, who was a former president of the Law Society of WA, and Mr Pino Monaco improperly influenced the PAC to instigate an improper investigation.
HEENAN J: Well, at any event there was a complaint to the Legal Practice Committee
CHIN, MR: Yes, and instead of the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee, the complaint was made to the Professional Affairs Committee where - - -
HEENAN J: And then they initiated proceedings in the State Administrative Tribunal.
CHIN, MR: And they initiated the proceedings and they decided to impose conditions on me, and I made an application against that decision to impose conditions on me for the nebulose deficiency of my professional knowledge.
HEENAN J: And was that also heard in the State Administrative Tribunal?
CHIN, MR: It was heard before Judge Eckert in VR 137 of 2006 and was decided on 12 September 2006. That becomes the subject of my appeal in CACV 43 of 2007.
HEENAN J: So that was an appeal to?
CHIN, MR: The Court of Appeal.
HEENAN J: Well, how did it get before Judge Chaney in the State Administrative Tribunal?
CHIN, MR: When the appeal CACV 43 was aborted on the grounds of the existence of the pseudo full board, the Legal Practice Board decided to enter into a consent judgment with me, and I asked for the terms of the settlement, the consent judgment, to be included but I was defrauded of the term of my consent judgment, and the Legal Practice Board through another pseudo board started again an inquiry panel. That inquiry panel again did not have the majority consent - - -
HEENAN J: Well, just tell me what happened. Did they make some decision adverse to you?
CHIN, MR: They made the decision to impose - to re‑impose the condition on me. Then the only thing that they wanted to do is to unreasonably curb my independent legal practice.
HEENAN J: Well, let me see if I have got this correct. There were proceedings before the Legal Practice Board
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 4
before her Honour Judge Eckert - I'm sorry, proceedings before the State Administrative Tribunal instituted by the Legal Practice Board and heard by her Honour Judge Eckert.
CHIN, MR: Instituted by me, your Honour, please.
HEENAN J: And from Judge Eckert's decision, there was an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Is that right?
CHIN, MR: Yes, your Honour.
HEENAN J: And what happened with that appeal?
CHIN, MR: We achieved a consent judgment through his Honour Steytler J on 26 September 2007.
HEENAN J: And what did that judgment order?
CHIN, MR: That the respective parties come to a settlement. The Legal Practice Board knew that it was in a quandary.
HEENAN J: Well, in any event the matter went back to the Legal Practice Board. Is that right?
CHIN, MR: Yes, the matter - after the consent judgment was achieved, the conditions of my settlement - I want to be able to have my independent practice again - was not granted to me because another pseudo board came into existence and it became an inquiry panel. The inquiry panel was established under section 41 of the former LP Act and that - - -
HEENAN J: What were they inquiring into?
CHIN, MR: They wanted to inquire into some nebulose deficiency of my professional knowledge, with no prospect of ever - - -
HEENAN J: Did that hearing go to a conclusion?
CHIN, MR: Did that hearing - sir?
HEENAN J: Proceed towards a conclusion.
CHIN, MR: That hearing proceeded towards a conclusion but that hearing was not able to validate its authority. That inquiry panel did not have the authority.
HEENAN J: Well, that's your submission.
CHIN, MR: It is an admission from the Legal Practice Board, your Honour, on two occasions.
HEENAN J: Well, what happened as a result of that?
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 5
CHIN, MR: The result is I made an application to review the decision of the inquiry panel to his Honour Chaney J. It was before the former president, his Honour Barker J, but Chaney J came into the process as the vice‑president and then Chaney J heard it through, but I plead with Chaney J that I want an objective decision.
HEENAN J: And what happened?
CHIN, MR: And Chaney J still make the decision that a condition be imposed on my practice certificate so that I cannot practise independently, although he found that I was not guilty of any professional misconduct, and his rationale is that section 39 and section 40 can be divested from each other, that is - - -
HEENAN J: Well, the decision was that certain restrictions on your right to practice should remain. Is that it?
CHIN, MR: Yes, your Honour.
HEENAN J: So you appealed from that to the Court of Appeal?
CHIN, MR: I appealed from that to the Court of Appeal in CACV 105 of 2008.
HEENAN J: So that's the second appeal to the Court of Appeal?
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: And what happened?
CHIN, MR: The Court of Appeal, through his Honour Pullin J, first tell me to put in my grounds of decision everything which Chaney J - - -
HEENAN J: Yes, but has the appeal been heard?
CHIN, MR: The appeal has been heard and leave has not been granted to appeal, your Honour, on the ground that it is unlikely to succeed.
HEENAN J: So you couldn't take that any further?
CHIN, MR: I took it to the High Court.
HEENAN J: And?
CHIN, MR: The High Court decided on 10 March 2010 to dismiss my application on the ground that the credibility of Chaney J still stands, and my contention - - -
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 6
HEENAN J: So you have challenged this decision of Chaney J by an application for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal and you have been refused leave, and from that refusal you have applied to the High Court of Australia for special leave to appeal and you have been refused special leave to appeal?
CHIN, MR: Yes, your Honour, but I see - I can see that the High Court decision is good because the High Court decision dismiss it on the ground of the credibility - -
HEENAN J: Well, what are these proceedings about?
CHIN, MR: This proceeding, your Honour, has got a two‑pronged objective. (1) - - -
HEENAN J: Don't tell me what the objective is. Tell me what it is that you want to obtain. What kind of orders do you want?
CHIN, MR: I want to obtain a certiorari order to be made nisi - a certiorari order nisi to be made absolute in terms of Chaney J's res judicata point decision that was delivered on 4 November 2009, which I term as an ambush decision.
HEENAN J: But is this not part of the decision which Chaney J made confirming the imposition of conditions which you took to the Court of Appeal and to the High Court?
CHIN, MR: No. On 30 June - - -
HEENAN J: Why isn't it?
CHIN, MR: On 30 June 2009 the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee - the Legal Profession Complaints Committee, being emboldened by my unsuccessful application for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal, started to commence a proceeding called VR 87 of 2009. That is what I call res judicata proceedings because - - -
HEENAN J: Is this a third set of proceedings?
CHIN, MR: Yes, it is, your Honour.
HEENAN J: You have been telling me about proceedings in the Legal Practice Board which led to a decision of her Honour Judge Eckert.
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: And then you have been telling me about subsequent proceedings in the Legal Practice Board which led to a decision of his Honour Chaney J.
CHIN, MR: Yes.
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 7
HEENAN J: Now, is this a third set of proceedings?
CHIN, MR: This is a third set of proceedings.
HEENAN J: And what are they?
CHIN, MR: It is VR 87 of 2009. It is based on the same facts and law that were already decided and were already litigated - - -
HEENAN J: But what are they trying to - what orders are they wanting?
CHIN, MR: They want professional misconduct this time in the res judicata proceedings. They have forgotten - or rather they could not find the reason for professional misconduct, and they are saying, "We begin a new proceeding against you on the same facts and law - on the same issues of facts and law, and we are going to get you for professional misconduct."
HEENAN J: And are the papers relating to that application somewhere here in your affidavit?
CHIN, MR: Yes. The papers that I have made are - is being amended, your Honour. I would like to go through - - -
HEENAN J: No, just a moment. I want to see, if I can, what are the most recent proceedings in the Legal Practice Board. Are they referred to in these papers of yours? There's such a large volume of papers, it's difficult to work out what has been happening.
CHIN, MR: Yes, your Honour. The latest is the insistence and the continuance of the Legal Profession Complaints Committee to further prosecute me on professional misconduct, which Chaney J is taking an active part to be involved.
HEENAN J: Well, I have just looked at your supplementary affidavit of 28 March.
CHIN, MR: Yes, your Honour.
HEENAN J: And at page 114 there's a letter to you from the Legal Profession Complaints Committee saying that there's a trial listed on 18, 19 and 20 May.
CHIN, MR: That is correct, your Honour.
HEENAN J: What trial is that?
CHIN, MR: The trial is the further prosecution for professional misconduct, which I term as the res judicata proceedings.
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 8
HEENAN J: Yes, but what I'm asking you is to tell me what exactly are the allegations which are made by the Legal Practice Board.
CHIN, MR: Those allegations are contained in the two books that I put in in CIV 1019.
HEENAN J: And there has also been a decision by Martin CJ shortly before Christmas.
CHIN, MR: Yes. I want to say that there has been some misunderstanding between me and the chief justice, and I'm not blaming the chief justice because at that time I was in a state of shock and trauma.
HEENAN J: Well, never mind about all that. I just want to find out what the current proceedings are.
CHIN, MR: The current proceedings are Chaney J has decided that the matter - what I term as the malicious and res judicata proceedings - that has been instituted by the LPCC on 30 June 2009 is to be continued and to be heard on 18 May 2010.
HEENAN J: So where do I find the allegations by the Legal Practice Complaints Committee of June 2009? Are they in these papers?
CHIN, MR: Yes, they are.
HEENAN J: Can you tell me where?
CHIN, MR: Page 306 to 388, your Honour.
HEENAN J: Of what?
CHIN, MR: Of the blue - of the two volumes of this book, beginning with 306.
HEENAN J: 306, did you say?
CHIN, MR: 306, your Honour.
HEENAN J: Well, that seems to me to be a response from you.
CHIN, MR: That's my response, but prior to that is the - at page 274, your Honour, is the application made by the Legal Profession Complaints Committee that is dated 30 June 2009.
HEENAN J: Page 274?
CHIN, MR: Yes, your Honour.
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 9
HEENAN J: Well, just a moment, please. Well, there are a whole series of allegations against you.
CHIN, MR: Yes, your Honour. All those - - -
HEENAN J: Are you still practising?
CHIN, MR: I cannot practise, your Honour, because I am being imposed a condition not to have independent practice and I cannot get any employment to be supervised by any lawyer in Western Australia, neither in another state, because everyone is afraid of the repercussion from the regulator of the legal profession. I'm being black‑marked because some erring members of the legal profession have been pillaging, plundering and robbing innocent members of the public, and I have proven that it has happened and I have got decisions that have been made against those people.
HEENAN J: Well, Mr Chin, I now have this application by the Legal Practice Complaints Committee which is to be heard in the State Administrative Tribunal in May. Now, what has happened since then? You have put in an answer.
CHIN, MR: Yes. I have asked for the res judicata proceedings in the State Administrative Tribunal to be aborted because I have made this application for certiorari orders to have - - -
HEENAN J: Just a moment. Why can't you go to the Legal Practice Board and make the defence that - - -
CHIN, MR: Your Honour - your Honour, I answer that, please.
HEENAN J: Well, just a moment. And raise any defence that you want to. I notice at page 421 that Judge Chaney on 22 September last year ordered that the question of whether the Legal Profession Complaints Committee is barred from bringing the present proceedings by reason of res judicata is to be determined on the papers and that that was adjourned further. Now, has that been determined?
CHIN, MR: There was a res judicata point judgment that was determined on 4 November.
HEENAN J: 4 November.
CHIN, MR: And that decision, your Honour, was made in my absence and I was ambushed by that decision - - -
HEENAN J: Well, it was - - -
CHIN, MR: - - - because, your Honour - - -
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 10
HEENAN J: Just a moment. The order of Chaney J on 22 September was that it was to be decided on the papers.
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: And here at page 428 appears to be the decision.
CHIN, MR: And he arranged for it to be heard on 10 November, but without informing me, he heard it in my absence on 4 November and made his decision on that day, which I did not have an opportunity to object to until 10 November when I was given such opportunity and I told him that I would appeal that decision. That is why I say that is an ambush decision, your Honour, and there are correspondence which record the fact that Chaney J has gone down and descended into the arena of conflict and was blinded by the dust of conflict.
HEENAN J: Well, you could appeal from the decision of Chaney J on this point to the Court of Appeal. Either you could apply for leave to appeal now or you could appeal from any eventual decision in the case.
CHIN, MR: My purpose, your Honour, in making an application for certiorari orders is the best solution for me because a single justice can have the matter reviewed. It is not an appeal, it is a review, and it is a prerogative order that entitles me - - -
HEENAN J: Yes. Well, one of the reasons why the court might refuse to order certiorari is that your rights are adequately protected by other rights of appeal.
CHIN, MR: My rights is not adequately protected by the Court of Appeal decision so far because the certiorari order that I'm asking is based on very cogent grounds.
HEENAN J: Very?
CHIN, MR: On very cogent grounds, your Honour.
HEENAN J: Cogent, yes.
CHIN, MR: Ground number 1 is that Chaney J made two decisions. The first decision
HEENAN J: Well, Mr Chin, it's very unusual for a court to grant a prerogative order by a certiorari or prohibition when there are proceedings committed in a court of competent jurisdiction that are pending and where there are rights of appeal.
CHIN, MR: Your Honour, there is no longer any proceedings pending. The Court of Appeal has dismissed my application - - -
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 11
HEENAN J: No, no. The proceedings before the State Administrative Tribunal are pending.
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: And they're going to trial in May.
CHIN, MR: Your Honour, I give you very cogent reason why the proceedings in the State Administrative Tribunal cannot be proceeded with.
HEENAN J: Well, Mr Chin, I - - -
CHIN, MR: Sir, can I please - can I please - - -
HEENAN J: Just a moment. I find it difficult to get a reliable account of all that has happened. Is there some reason why you have not served these papers on the Legal Practice Board or Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee?
CHIN, MR: All these papers are already in their purview, except for the - - -
HEENAN J: I'm sorry, I didn't quite hear.
CHIN, MR: Are already in their purview, your Honour.
HEENAN J: Already in the?
CHIN, MR: I have only one paper - - -
HEENAN J: I'm sorry, I still didn't catch what you said.
CHIN, MR: All those papers that I serve you are already with the Legal Practice Board. There's only - - -
HEENAN J: What, this application?
CHIN, MR: There's only this application that is not with the board, but once you have gone - we have gone through it, then when you order it, I will serve it. Your Honour, the State Administrative Tribunal proceedings, called VR 87 of 2009, is without jurisdiction. It is without jurisdiction because Henderson v Henderson - that is the law which says that you cannot - the Legal Practice Board cannot have a further remedy.
HEENAN J: Chaney J has decided against you on that ground.
CHIN, MR: Say that again, your Honour.
HEENAN J: Chaney J decided against you on that point.
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 12
CHIN, MR: That point was not included at that point of time, and I think Chaney J is now convinced that he has got no right to continue with the proceedings.
HEENAN J: Mr Chin, I am very reluctant to deal with this matter in the absence of submissions from the Legal Practice Complaints Committee.
CHIN, MR: Yes, your Honour.
HEENAN J: I am inclined to think that the proper course would be to adjourn this morning's application and order you to file a copy of all these papers on the Legal Complaints Committee and give them an opportunity to make submissions and then, if you want to, to hear it afresh when they have an opportunity to make countervailing submissions. Do you understand?
CHIN, MR: I would agree to that, your Honour, but before that happens, your Honour, please let me explain my point very clearly.
HEENAN J: Well, I think I understand your point. Your point is that for reasons which are long and complicated you were deprived of the proper opportunity to make submissions in relation to your res judicata point and the decision on that res judicata point, dismissing it, shouldn't be allowed to stand.
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: Isn't that what you want to say?
CHIN, MR: Yes. The law on res judicata says that - - -
HEENAN J: Yes, I think I understand what the law says, but your point is that you shouldn't have to go through this hearing on the Legal Practice Board because you've got a res judicata point.
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: And although the State Administrative Tribunal, by the decision of Chaney J, decided against you on the res judicata point, that decision shouldn't be allowed to stand because you say that for various reasons it was reached wrongly and without you being given a sufficient opportunity to contest it.
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: And consequently you want that decision set aside and you want the proceedings before the State Administrative Tribunal to be quashed.
CHIN, MR: Yes. Your Honour - - -
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 13
HEENAN J: Am I right in understanding that?
CHIN, MR: Yes, but what I'm trying - - -
HEENAN J: Well, I can understand that, Mr Chin, but the point is that all this has had a very long history and the proceedings are advanced. A lot of judicial officers have, rightly or wrongly, concluded that your case is not strong enough to justify intervention, and before I would make an order which would have the effect of holding up all those proceedings, I think I should hear the other side of the story from the Legal Practice Complaints Committee. It's only fair that the other side of the story should be heard.
CHIN, MR: Yes. Your Honour, the writ for certiorari orders does not require the other side - - -
HEENAN J: I know it doesn't require it to be made on notice, but at any time if the court thinks that it is desirable to be made on notice, it can be ordered to be made on notice.
CHIN, MR: Your Honour, I'm ready to comply with the order but I just want the court to understand clearly that the complaints committee has got no right for further remedy of professional misconduct.
HEENAN J: Well, that's the point that has to be decided.
CHIN, MR: That is a point that is clearly in the law, and then all those things -
HEENAN J: Mr Chin, you say it's clearly in the law but there is a - - -
CHIN, MR: Exception to it.
HEENAN J: There is a considered decision of the State Administrative Tribunal by his Honour Chaney J which has dismissed that application. You say that it's wrong, but I should give it at least some credit and certainly enough credit to require you to give the Legal Complaints Committee an opportunity to be heard, because if Chaney J's decision is correct, and one starts off by assuming that such decisions are correct, then you would not be entitled to this relief.
CHIN, MR: Yes, your Honour. Chaney J has a change of mind, I believe, after I forward to him my submission on the case of Henderson v Henderson, which relates to the further remedy.
HEENAN J: Well, Mr Chin, I don't need to hear you go into all this now because the more you tell me about this, the more I feel it is necessary to give the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee an opportunity to be heard. I think
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 14
what I should do is adjourn these proceedings for 14 days and order that you serve a copy of all the papers upon the authorised officer of the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee and give the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee an opportunity to file any affidavit or affidavits in opposition to the application and to file written submissions before the next hearing.
CHIN, MR: Yes, your Honour, I agree to that, but just one point I want to raise is that when the matter was - - -
HEENAN J: Well, why is it necessary to raise any other points?
CHIN, MR: Your Honour, when the matter was heard before Chaney J, Chaney J does not require the opposing counsel to make any submission, and as a result Chaney J was misled by the omission of the opposing counsel.
HEENAN J: Well, I have already indicated to you that I propose to order that not only should the papers be served on the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee but that it should file any affidavit or affidavits relating to the matter within the next - - -
CHIN, MR: 14 days.
HEENAN J: - - - 14 days and serve copies upon you, and also to file written submissions, so you will have an opportunity to see them.
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: And they can be considered when the matter comes on again in 14 days' time. If for any reason there is insufficient time for all that to be done within the 14 days, well, then anybody can ask for an extension of time.
CHIN, MR: Okay, your Honour, I agree to that.
HEENAN J: All right. Well, Mr Chin, the orders will be that the application is adjourned for 14 days, secondly, that you shall serve copies of all the papers which are presently before me upon the authorised officer of the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee within two days - can you do it within two days?
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: Within two days. Next, there will be an order for the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee, if it chooses to do so, to enter an appearance, to file any affidavit or affidavits in opposition to the application and to file written submissions within 10 days of the date of service.
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 15
CHIN, MR: Thank you, your Honour.
HEENAN J: And there will be liberty to apply generally and for an extension of any of the time limits imposed. Otherwise the matter will come on for hearing on notice on Tuesday fortnight.
CHIN, MR: Yes. Just one last point, your Honour. The last point is that my application for certiorari orders is for the scrapping of Chaney J's first judgment on the ground that his reasons for decision is deficient because Chaney J refused to touch on the live issue. The live issue is that I have always been confronted not with the real authority of the Legal Practice Board but with a pseudo board and that was assumed by any four members, and they have admitted on two occasions through my barrister that they do not have the real authority of the regulator of the legal profession either through section 10 and section 11 pertaining to the delegation of authorities under the former LP Act and through regulations 15 and 17 of the Legal Practice Board rules.
HEENAN J: Well, that's something that I can ask counsel for the Legal Practice Complaints Committee about if and when he appears.
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: All right. Well, those will be the orders and the court will adjourn.
AT 11.07 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED ACCORDINGLY
6/4/10 CHIN, MR 16
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)